Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yes (word)
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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 15:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Yes (word)
Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Quintillion 01:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT MadCow257 01:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, as "yes" and "no" are such hugely important words. I'm not a linguist, but intuitively, it seems to me these could eventually be big encyclopedia entries. --Allen 01:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I'd say transwiki it to Wictionary, but Wictionary already has a perfectly nice entry for "Yes." --Hyperbole 01:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- No. Dicdef at best. Long way from convinced this will become encyclopedic, perhaps by saying "George Washington was know to have said "yes" in several key speeches. It also appears in the Bible.. "?? Delete. Deizio 01:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, citing instances was not what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of, why do we have a Germanic word for the affirmative and a Latin (I assume) word for the negative, when the two meanings seem so closely related? Why are "aye" and "yea" used in certain contexts? Why don't we use a different affirmative word for answering a negative question, like some languages do? --Allen 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- These are legitimate topics, but I think they should be discussed in Affirmation and/or certain subpages of English language. dbtfztalk 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed this line of debate is interesting, and words such as "yes", "no", "milk" and a few others can be discussed in languages of the world rather than just English. But you seem to be advocating some kind of debate and research, rather than presenting information already known to be notable and already reported in reputable sources, which Wikipedia - as a tertiary source - is more suited to. If widely reported and accepted info can be shaped into a WP article about the evolution of a hugely important word then it has a chance, but I would need to see it presented as such before changing my original vote. Deizio 02:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by advocating debate; I didn't mean to advocate debate. Nor do I mean to advocate any primary research. If the answers to the questions I suggested are not known to the field of linguistics, then my argument fails and the page should be deleted. I'm voting keep because I suspect that someone (though not me) knows the answers and will eventually put them in the article, with sources, given enough time. (My goal in these responses isn't really to save the article, but to explain my thinking.
Incidentally, my understanding is that Wikipedia is both a secondary and a tertiary source. Is this incorrect?Sorry -- looking more closely at tertiary source, I see that a tertiary source includes both primary and secondary sources, which is exactly how I see Wikipedia.) --Allen 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by advocating debate; I didn't mean to advocate debate. Nor do I mean to advocate any primary research. If the answers to the questions I suggested are not known to the field of linguistics, then my argument fails and the page should be deleted. I'm voting keep because I suspect that someone (though not me) knows the answers and will eventually put them in the article, with sources, given enough time. (My goal in these responses isn't really to save the article, but to explain my thinking.
- Indeed this line of debate is interesting, and words such as "yes", "no", "milk" and a few others can be discussed in languages of the world rather than just English. But you seem to be advocating some kind of debate and research, rather than presenting information already known to be notable and already reported in reputable sources, which Wikipedia - as a tertiary source - is more suited to. If widely reported and accepted info can be shaped into a WP article about the evolution of a hugely important word then it has a chance, but I would need to see it presented as such before changing my original vote. Deizio 02:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- These are legitimate topics, but I think they should be discussed in Affirmation and/or certain subpages of English language. dbtfztalk 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, citing instances was not what I had in mind. I was thinking more along the lines of, why do we have a Germanic word for the affirmative and a Latin (I assume) word for the negative, when the two meanings seem so closely related? Why are "aye" and "yea" used in certain contexts? Why don't we use a different affirmative word for answering a negative question, like some languages do? --Allen 02:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. dbtfztalk 02:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as dicdef --TBC
??? ??? ??? 02:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC) - Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Royboycrashfan
03:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC) - Yes this should be deleted. 205.188.116.199 06:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as dicdef. --Siva1979Talk to me 09:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete not encyclopedic. Chairman S. Talk 11:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef, the band is the next that comes to mind. feydey 12:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or transwiki.Vizjim 12:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as dicdef. And what's all that stuff about Greg's beard? Reyk 12:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef. --Terence Ong 13:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Fundamental grammatical markers and particles have important ramifications in both logic and culture, and are as worthy of encyclopedia articles in the English wikipedia as individual letters of the alphabet. The article already goes beyond a dictionary definition, and can be expanded well beyond what's there now. Should ultimately at least mention Molly Bloom's Soliloquy. Smerdis of Tlön 17:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete dicdef. --Khoikhoi 17:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep for the the reason that it's an exceedingly common concept and it could quite an interesting article about it that surpasses a simple dic-def. History, etc. I know I'm going against consensus here, but hay, whatever. ---J.Smith 22:48, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Allen. --Z.Spy 00:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep; I'd like to see how this develops. At present it isn't a very strong article, but yes is a concept as well as a word, and it could thus potentially go far beyond the dictionary definition. The article does mention the French si and German doch to make the point that affirmativeness is not universal and can be dependent on context. Whether this is best explored in Yes (word) or in another article is something to consider, but I would argue against a hasty deletion. ProhibitOnions 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. What precisely is this article meant to say, that is not a dicdef? (Ditto for "no"). Batmanand | Talk 00:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete dicdef -Mask
00:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC) - Weak delete per wictionary. Arbusto 06:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- keep. Very common word, very interesting, notable for (eg) being first used around 1000. The OED lists 10 senses (which again is notable in its own right), and I'm sure that the wiki community could add others....if the article stays. keep. Robinh 22:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: dictionary def. Peter Grey 04:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, don't delete. Denni ☯ 01:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete or interwiki --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 10:32, 28 March 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
