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. Mailer Diablo 19:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to detract from its usefulness, but this is clearly a case of original research. -- Dissident (Talk) 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, delete. --Peta 03:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and improve/provide sources, in light of pages such as this one and this one. However, I might suggest that both the Esperanto and Finnish pages be moved to titles in their respective Wikis. Fabricationary 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious difference between the english list and the esperanto list is that the latter was made from a survey conducted by the author which is OR. The Finish list is also problematic as it has no source information and I have nominated it for deletion.--Peta 04:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the author's rôle can be limited to merely tabulating existing data (from recognised and citable sources), that will not be OR. New analysis of existing data is excluded only if it "appears to advance a position". Vilĉjo 08:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
agree to weak keep This could be a valid article. While they may have a place in the Esperanto and Finnish wikis also, I think that these articles can very well be articles in the English wikipedia also. McKay 09:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was inspired to use Gutenberg by this page. I understand that the necessity for manual editing of the word list might turn it into OR. I'm pretty sure there are other Esperanto corpora out there, though - let me see what I can come up with. --π! 04:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as orginal research. Userfy if the author wants. I do not think any of the other wikis, including the non-encyclopedias like Wikisource, would accept original research. -- Kjkolb 07:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Granted original research is against policy, but it's still up for debate whether it fits that definition. See this discussion. --π! 08:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. In principle this should be a perfectly valid article (like Most common words in English) – it is its limited source material which makes it potentially fall foul of WP:NOR. If the source material is sufficient to circumvent this (so that there is no need for manual editing or evidence of obvious anomalies as there are at present), there should be no problem. (If it survives this vote, it should however be tagged ((cleanup-verify)) until the improvements are made.) Vilĉjo 08:43, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ekajati 14:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; do we have a Swadesh list for Esperanto? That might be more useful than this, which may be better at Wiktionary instead. Smerdis of Tlön 14:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, they have one here already: [1] --π! 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this could be improved and some statement of relevance. Keeping is probably better than merging with Esperanto. A Swadesh list would be a good idea in Esperanto, and all languages. Carlossuarez46 17:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Vickser 20:21, 28 July 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.