Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indo-European root word articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge to PIE root words, oh boy... Redwolf24 (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Keu-3, Keu-2, Kéu-, Yu-2, Yu-1, Yós-, Yewo-2, Yewo-1, Yeug-, Keu-1, Kes-2, Kes-1, Ker-4, Ker-5, Kerd-1, Kerd-2, Kerdh-, Kerem-, Kerə-, Kerp-, Kers-1, Kers-2, Kert-, Ker-1, Ker-2, Ker-3, Kentho-, Kent-

Are all these articles really Encyclopedic? It seems to me that they aren't. --Hottentot

  • Delete as dicdefs. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki --Rogerd 02:20, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge into a general article about PIE root words. There is no place in Wiktionary for hypothetical words. There is also no uniform system for "spelling these. Eclecticology 21:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • American Heritage Dictionary has them. [1]--JWB 20:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Eclecticology. Could be a really interesting article when done. Denni☯ 00:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
    • How would the merger differ from an article on Proto-Indo-European? —Felix the Cassowary (ɑe hɪː jɐ) 01:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I would hope it would be less technical than the PIE article, which, quite frankly, is beyond me as a layman. These articles are much more illustrative, and can give me a better feel of how language is shaped. Denni☯ 01:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, I want to read the resulting article on PIE root words / hypothetical words. Andreww 08:03, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge as per Eclecticology. Wiktionary can afford to make this into an appendix, but this is not the best choice; Wikipedia is far better equipped for discussing the various systems and academic wrangling and heckling that results from these POV-laden roots. Main articles on Wikt: are frankly out of the question; were they to be transwikied, RFD there would smash them to bits. --Wytukaze 15:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge per Eclecticology and Wytukaze. I am not sure how useful the leftover page names would be as search terms. At any rate, certainly do not lose this valuable information. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:42, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete foreign dictdefs.  Grue  17:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • My view is that these don't meet our criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary, as they simply are not attested words, by their very natures as hypotheses, and that therefore transwikification is not an option. I asked editors at Wiktionary to contribute to this discussion, stating that view but also pointing out that the AHD has an appendix listing such words. As you can see above, other Wiktionary editors agree that Wiktionary will not take these as main namespace articles. It's worth noting that, unlike many other of our language articles, Proto-Indo-European language has no "vocabulary" section or breakout vocabulary article. (Compare Esperanto language and its Esperanto vocabulary article.) The merger suggested above would create a "roots" article paralleling such a breakout vocabulary article. Uncle G 03:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. As of the above.Rhetoricalwater 18:30, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it I like it. I mean, I know it's a little sparse, and obviously hypothetical, but it does say that, doesn't it? If its author can finish it, I think it could be very helpful for a lot of people. If he/she can finish it.
  • Merge I don't know what these are, but whole bunch of new ones just appeared today and they are a bit of a mess. They need to be condensed somehow. rydia 21:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Well it looks like this is going to end with the listed articles being merged into some kind of "roots" article. As a vote is not needed to merge articles, the new ones could be merged too. Andreww 22:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge looks a reasonable option - there is useful information here, but the articles can;t really stand alone. Rd232 18:04, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.