Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Khmer words of Chinese origin

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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 16:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Khmer words of Chinese origin[edit]

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

Multiple good reasons: 1) all original research, no sources 2) of all the languages influencing Khmer, Chinese probably had the least influence...all of the words in the list are merely transliterations of Proper Nouns (given names or surnames), or names for specifically Chinese things, not organic borrowings or loanwords per se. They aren't "Khmer words", they are still recognized as being Chinese. The only words on this list that are actual borrowings that replaced native words are the numbers, but they were borrowed from Thai (which ultimately did borrow them from Chinese, but they were borrowed into Khmer after they were fully "Thai-ified"), making this list meaningless William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:07, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as nominator.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Sanskari ^Hangout 13:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete by WP:Not a dictionary.Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete as original research and an unencyclopaedic topic per WP:Not a dictionary.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDICTIONARY applies. /wia /tlk /cntrb 13:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. While, in theory, such an article or list could be created, as written it has no way to source: it's pure WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 00:27, 21 October 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.