Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Lezgic languages

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 03:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the article, as per this close. Note that it was tagged in May 2012 for a transwiki over to the English Wiktionary - though that does not appear to have happened. If someone plans to transwiki this article, leave a message on my talk page or at WP:REFUND and someone will get you a copy. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swadesh list of Lezgic languages

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

This page was created over three years ago to be in the style of Swadesh list of Slavic languages, which has both a list and some prose covering the phonological history of the language family in question. In those three years, not even the list element has been completed. The page has been marked to be transwikied to Wiktionary, but there's no actual content to transfer since the lexical items on this page are in IPA transcription. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Comment: For a related deletion, see WP:Articles for deletion/Swadesh list of Tsezic languages. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. There have been a few recent publications on East Caucasian/Daghestanian/Lezgian languages that might be appropriate sources, but I'm not convinced that Wikipedia is the right venue for this. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists. Regarding transwiki, see wikt:Appendix:Swadesh lists. Cnilep (talk) 02:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence that the topic (not the languages, but the Swadesh list of it) is a notable topic in itself. Fram (talk) 09:30, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or move to Wiktionary. This is something that could have been placed in the Lezgic languages article, but IMO it's easier for the reader if it's split off. There are lots of these Swadesh lists on WP, and perhaps they should all be moved to Wk, with appropriate links from WP articles. That's what we decided to do w all Swadesh lists back in 2006.[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swadesh lists] Any reason to think consensus has changed?

I don't understand the comment that the IPA is not content. Is there consensus at Wk that IPA entries is inappropriate? — kwami (talk) 01:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are only three Swadesh list articles on WP (two of which are covered in this nomination). I've never seen IPA-only entries at Wiktionary for languages that have writing systems. Is that really a place for them? — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that Wiktionary generally uses standard orthographies (e.g. Devanagari for Hindi, Latin for English, etc.), but may also include phonetic transcription or Latin transliteration in Swadesh lists. Cnilep (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any IPA-only columns for languages that have writing systems, though I suppose if Wiktionary will take our little red-headed step-child they can take it. It would have to be manually inserted though, since it's too big for a bot to do it. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ]} 02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 18:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:55, 22 January 2013 (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.