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.
I am nominating this article for deletion based on WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I like this article. It is also on an important and interesting subject. I love words and dictionaries and enjoy browsing through dictionaries to learn new words and more about the meaning and origins of words. What this article is is the result of people going through a dictionary and picking out tidbits and presenting them to us on a plate. Good work and enjoyable to read. However WP is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. An article on the influence of Chinese culture on the West would be vital to an encyclopedia. Also articles on the development of languages and the process of words being adopted by one language from another would be important. But articles on the meaning and origin of single words belong in a dictionary. Taking a number of them and putting them on one page does not change that, it seems to me. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personally, I would transwiki the main list to Wiktionary if it is not there already, move this to a better title such as Chinese words in English, and flesh out the introductory paragraph and bullet list into an article discussing these several sorts of cultural contact in a historical manner. Until all of that has been done without loss of data, this article is a start towards that goal, and should be kept. I don't see a slippery slope here, that some day we might end up with articles on Volapük words in Nahuatl or what have you; and if there verifiably are any Volapük words in Nahuatl, let that article be written too. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up, as suggested by Ihcoyc. The list itself can probably be replicated by a Wiktionary category, but the general topic is encyclopedic and more than just a list of words can be written. This is essentially what I did to Chinese classifier (which used to be just a list; now that list is at List of Chinese classifiers, which is probably also a good candidate for wiktionary). rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not a dictionary. It shows something interesting about the English language and its propensity for incorporating words from all over the globe (rather than translating them). It is important to have such a list because so many items are not easily identified as Chinese (or even of non-English origin) because of (1) spelling differences depending on which romanization system was used by whomever dragged the word into Engish, (2) regional variations in vocabulary and pronunciation in Chinese that are so great that the same word as represented by one Chinese character might easily be brought into English twice even if the same romanization system were used. It is also important because seeing how much in the English-speaking world is derived from Chinese tends to ameliorate some of that world's cultural chauvinism. It's also worthwhile because it is fun, and encyclopedias do not need to eliminate things that are fun any more than they need to eliminate explanations that are easy to understand in favor of explanations written at high levels of abstraction.P0M (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although I also !voted "keep", I would like to respond to this. Articles are not kept or deleted based on whether they are WP:USEFULorWP:FUN, or on whether the article itself is an example of some broader trend. (And this article doesn't show anything about English's "propensity for incorporating words from all over the globe", only about its borrowings from Chinese.) rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Ihcoyc, I think the actual list should be transwikied to Wiktionary (unless it's already there) and the introductory section and beginning list cleaned up and turned into an article with a name like Chinese words in English, possibly with a bit more information on how they got there, perhaps? The history of the transferring of words from one major international language to another is, to me, notable and worthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. 123Hedgehog456 18:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does not look like a dictionary entry to me though it is a coherent set of such entries together with a substantial relevant commentary. As such the article rather well fits "things are grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by" which is how WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary determines suitability for Wikipedia. Anyway, I am not at all sure Wiktionary hosts articles like this: indeed, I wonder if the folks there would say it belongs in Wikipedia. The Wiktionary category linked to from this article refers back to the current article for more details. I think it should stay here. See wikt:Category:Chinese derivations. Thincat (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting reasoning. I agree that an article on the topic of English words from Chinese would be a good topic for an article, if there are sources that discuss the topic itself -- not just if examples can be found. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a question: To what extent are glossaries accepted in Wikipedia? Is there a specific topic range, or is it something else? For instance, some might argue that List of medical abbreviations is highly encyclopedic, but others may say that it is a list of jargon. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail 02:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List of medical abbreviations is not at all an encyclopedia article. However it is very useful to have if a person is looking for a specific item. On the other hand this article is closer to a proper article since it is making a larger overall statement. However I don't think it's likely that anyone will have a word in mind and come to this list looking for it. Kitfoxxe (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with much of what's been said, especially by Smerdis, Rjanag, and Hedgehog: the list should be moved to Wiktionary, but the lead and the first section contain the germ of a Wikipedia article. Wiktionary does indeed host material like this; see for example Wiktionary:Appendix:Spanish words of Italic origin. I disagree that the list itself shows something interesting or inherently important about the English language, and Wikipedia should neither synthesize a conclusion about what that something is nor collect the data from which others may do so. Still, my suggestions add up to a keep !vote, since renaming and splitting are handled outside of AfD. Cnilep (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. Perhaps, rather than making it a list, it could be an article with a bit more prose, that includes a few examples. Information can be made encyclopedic, it just depends on how it's brought across. -- 李博杰 | —Talkcontribsemail 01:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such a list is not a dictionary. Besides, where can you find a dictionary that only lists English words of Chinese orgin? This article does not duplicate info from elsewhere. The introduction discusses different routes the words reached the English language is encyclopedic. I don't see what rationale started this proposal. Kowloonese (talk) 02:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep etymological articles are encyclopedic. The English language is filled with words from other languages. An article about the Chinese language influence on the English language might be better but this one is not bad. MLA (talk) 10:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone involved in linguistics in China this is one of the pages I visit most on Wikipedia. Unfortunately it's in a gap between the scopes of WP and Wictionary - the detail and organisation are too narrativized to fit into a dictionary, but it remains what it is, a list of words. While I'm for keeping it, it does raise a greater issue re: Spanish words of Italic origin, etc, the argument obviously being "where does it end?" I'm glad that this has come up because it's an opportunity for WP to clarify the scope in this area. Two solutions have been offered above - transferring this kind of thing to wiktionary and keeping it here. Can I offer a third - we decide on a different set of guidelines for articles relating to the English language to the standard for other languages. This may seem like an unreasonable bias, but let's not forget that this is the English language WP. It's more reasonable for an encyclopaedia to include analysis of the language it is written in than to cover every permutation of different languages. I'm not saying that this is the solution here, in fact on balance I'd tend towards including all, but it's a valid alternative to be considered. Bienfuxia (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Transwiki and delete, Wikipedia Is Not A Dictionary. >Radiant< 15:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note from Nom My nomination was not based on any lack of importance or interest of the topic, but on the unsuitability of the format as a list of dictionary entries. If "WP is not a dictionary" I don't think a list on WP should be a mini-dictionary. As for the topic, an article on Chinese influence on the English language would be a good thing I think. Kitfoxxe (talk) 00:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no difficulty with this (having voted keep above). References would be a great asset and not merely as a gesture towards wiki policy. It would be nice to keep track of the actual words but the link to the Wiktionary category achieves this. Thincat (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would merely say that this article should be deleted if it's against policy. However, it is clear non of the other "english words of " east asian languages are slated for deletion it seems unusal and biased. I would ask why Nom did not go after any of the other languages like japanese or korean in this instance. Wikipedia should be very careful not to drawn into a "cultural" flame war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.91.252 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I nominated this one is that it was presented as an example in another discussion. I would be happy to nominate, or vote to delete, any other articles of the same type. I also share your understanding that China is one of the most important historical centers of human civilization. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note If you nominate a bunch of articles at a time people will say, "Why did you nominate so many?" If you nominate just one they will say, "Why did you nominate only that one?" :-) Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was defending myself against what I understood as the charge of prejudgice against the Chinese in favor of the Japanese and Koreans. I still uphold the position that lists of words, with their meanings and origins, belong in a dictionary not an encyclopedia. Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment In that case I would like to change my "keep" !vote above to "strong keep" since I would not want a conceivable deletion here to set any sort of precedent. Doesn't look anything like a "delete" close anyway but you never know when closing administrators feel they have divine guidance. Thincat (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable. Couldn't have the backstory/introduction on wiktionary. Casliber (talk·contribs) 20:05, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I happen to have a dictionary that includes essays on the history of the English language. (Not that I expect this statement to sway the discussion.) :-) -Kitfoxxe (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (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.
