Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 19:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of country names in various languages

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Consists of only translations; should be moved to Wikitionary. The other project is much more mature now compared to the time of the first discussion. -- Beland (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the subpages which actually have the content:

-- Beland (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Many of these translations are already present on Wiktionary, where they belong. The rest should be moved there. I suggest transwikiing these pages to Wiktionary, so that the users there (including me) can sift through and add the translations that are not already present to the appropriate entries. —
talk · contribs) 17:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Nothing more than just a few translations. Noteswork (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I'm open to changing my !vote, but I think we need more discussion, so I'd like to list some arguments for both sides from the previous AfD. First of all, as a translator, I'd like to say that this list is of no use to me because it's backwards. Normally I have a foreign word and need the English one. Second, I think the Wikitionary layout is better and that the entries there are more useful because they have the gender and links to the Wiktionaries of the various languages.
- Arguments on the Delete side: The main argument for Delete was ease of maintenance -- since Wiktionary and WP are sister projects, we should have only one list. Some editors also thought that translations belong on Wiktionary.
- Arguments on the Keep side: It's useful to have all the translations together instead of scattered among many Wikitionary entries. Wikipedia is more accessible than Wikitionary. The list has been used to settle naming disputes. Wikipedia has similar lists (city names, region names, etc.). It's interesting. Hundreds of contributors.
- My own opinion: The maintenance issue doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. E.g., the A–C page has had about 20 edits over the past year. It should be easy enough to move those changes over periodically. I also don't see any compelling reason why two lists can't exist -- the distributed one on Wikt and the all-together one here. If necessary, a working copy of this list can be saved on Wikt without deleting it here. This article gets a lot of page views, and I'm wondering why. Probably most of those users don't know about this AfD discussion, but I'd like to hear from them. It seems like a decision that will have wide-reaching consequences, so maybe more input is needed than just the four of us. Especially since we would overruling the clear majority of the previous AfD (which admittedly was a long time ago). – Margin1522 (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 05:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In earlier days on WP I would not have voted to keep, saying this is not what an encyclopedia is for, the information can be found elsewhere, etc. But now I see that people put a lot of work in it. And, although I can not imagine myself using it, some people will find it useful.Borock (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep useful. Hafspajen (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An encyclopedic list of country names in other languages, in other words, a list with clear inclusion criteria on a notable subject. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Lugnuts, this meets the criteria for an encyclopedic list, and it's a potentially valuable organizational tool. --Arxiloxos (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts.
-- Calidum 06:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment - Abstaining for the moment, but I'm noticing that the Keep arguments seem to either (a) fail to address the deletion rationale or (b) rely on one of the
WP:SALAT). Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, isn't a translation tool, isn't a list of "various" anything. It seems to simply be outside the scope of the project, whether or not it's useful or people put time into it. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – Yes, I noticed when making that summary that it is like a list of arguments to avoid. Presumably the closer will take that into account. But I don't we need to decide what people use Wikipedia for. To many translators it is a translation tool. They use it all the time, because it helps to understand the topic you're working on. Anyway, I think the relevant policy here is
infield fly article. As for this one, if I had to choose I would choose Wiktionary. But the one argument that did impress me was that it helped to settle naming disputes. These come up all the time, especially in articles about Europe. If having it here helps the encyclopedia, that might be a reason for keeping it. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep toponymy is encyclopedic, and these are little different that the numerous other glossaries, gazetteers, etc., which form part of the WP:Five pillars. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 6 January 2015 (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.