Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Abcormal/List of numbers in various languages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Salvio ^giuliano 15:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abcormal/List of numbers in various languages

This page was deleted from mainspace almost a year ago at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of numbers in various languages; the discussion there shows that this subject will never become a viable Wikipedia article. It was subsequently undeleted and userfied by User:Ritchie333 and myself, ostensibly so that it could be transwikified to Wiktionary. However:

Wiktionary has, for years now, categorically refused to accept any material originating on Wikipedia, and
The users requesting the page's restoration, far from trying to make it acceptable to either project, have carried on editing the userfied copy as if nothing had happened.

If ever there was cause to invoke

Cryptic 05:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As this page is valuable enough, its purpose is also to keep a backup to avoid losing it forever. To delete a backup improves nothing, as it is even not an encyclopedia page for now.

Also I, and several other editors, have made very heavy improvement since its deletion, especially in fixing those data incorrect and unreliable (such as Proto-Berber numerals and problematic orthographies). We wouldn't need to edit so much if we only want to circumvent the policy.

We are not time-travellers, so we cannot just say "it will never become a viable Wikipedia article". However if someone deletes it, yes it would.

There ARE people who need this page, while deleting this page not only improves nothing, but also is an abuse of the policy, which does not improve the quality of Wikipedia but makes itself to an excessive ideology. 17lcxdudu (talk) 07:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Wikiuser's essay about such circumstance:

user:Xyzzyplugh/Articles_about_words

Please view it for reference. 17lcxdudu (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Save it to your computer. —Alalch E. 08:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already saved it to my sandbox. I will keep update and improve the article until its quality is enough for recover it to Wikipedia. 17lcxdudu (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sandbox will be deleted by this discussion too. Save it to your computer. —
Cryptic 13:47, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
While there is probably a reason to delete this user page, there seems to be neither a reason nor a rule to delete such a sandbox, and it should not be affected by the fate of this page. 17lcxdudu (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have saved the source code to my computer. 17lcxdudu (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I have seen no reason why this list should be deleted, and no strong reason why it should be kept. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the reason:
WP:DEL-REASON#13: "use of the ... user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace".—Alalch E. 21:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete The users requesting the page's restoration, far from trying to make it acceptable to either project, have carried on editing the userfied copy as if nothing had happened. amounts to
using Wikipedia as a web host for content that has been deemed to be unacceptable. As this page is valuable enough -> no, the community has decided it is not valuable, and deleting such content is hence an improvement. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:19, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
This page does not fit in any of the catagories in WP:NOTWEBHOST, as it is obviously not a personal page or personal data collection, nor simply useless files.

The community has decided that the previous version of this article should be removed from Wikipedia mainspace, but not to deny the value of it. Deletion of this userfied page would not improve anything; if it really would for this user page, it still makes no sense to delete a sandbox containing the backup. 17lcxdudu (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The users requesting the page's restoration, far from trying to make it acceptable to either project, have carried on editing the userfied copy as if nothing had happened has turned it from a Wikipedia article into a personal page or storage area - that's what's happened if you don't try to meet Wikipedia's standards. it still makes no sense to delete a sandbox containing the backup - it makes perfect sense, as the "backup" userpage (for any future confused readers:
WP:BLUDGEON this discussion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not copyright violation just copying text from one Wikipedia page to another.

This is not
WP:BLUDGEON, as I am just debating with who replies me first. There are not enough users in this discussion, and for now if I stop talking here, there will be only Delete voices and not a real discussion. 17lcxdudu (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
It is not copyright violation just copying text from one Wikipedia page to another. -> Yes, it is, if the source page is deleted so attribution to its editors is lost (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete). Even if it weren't, though, your backup would still be just as unacceptable as the page it is backing up.
You think 5 people is not enough users in this discussion? That's actually pretty high participation as deletion discussions go. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This page was created in 2003, has a history of nearly twenty years, and has been edited by uncountable users; its deletion itself is controversial. This is the reason I suggest that there should be a larger, wider discussion among the Wikiusers; not only to make more cautious decision and solution, but also to respect those editors during the last twenty years.

A backup will not be unacceptable, as it does not even need acceptance unless is recovered. Also, who needs to accept a sandbox? 17lcxdudu (talk) 00:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I previously suggested.

17lcxdudu (talk) 20:53, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this list is really dictionary-like than an encyclopedia article, there should be no reason that Wiktionary does not accept it, as the rule (WT:WINW) does not fit to this vocabulary list.

Currently I have no idea with such problem. I am blocked in Wiktionary as a VPN user in mainland China. If there is anybody who can help, huge thanks a lot. 17lcxdudu (talk) 00:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask Wiktionary editors about how absolutely euphoric they are to receive this page, seeing that they have the same thing, only in a very rough state: wikt:Appendix:Numerals in various languages—Alalch E. 01:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your help. 17lcxdudu (talk) 02:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
Cryptic: I've made some progress on the transwiki front: wikt sysop seems to agree with the idea—Alalch E. 14:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Oh that's a big progress, nice work. I will follow up. 17lcxdudu (talk) 14:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per
WP:FAKEARTICLE. CastJared (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.