Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rugrats vocabulary

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Eugene van der Pijll 14:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugrats vocabulary[edit]

At best, this could be merged into the main Rugrats article, but this, in its current form, is just a bit too superfluous for a Wikipedia article. Frag 21:50, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Delete it's just a list of "translated" baby talk. Most kids pronounce words like that when they're just learning to talk. Entirely non-notable. Soltak 22:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just a list of when they use words that are slightly different to their actual pronunciations. There are loads of these throughout the show, and the list just as it is is unencyclopediac. Not non-notable, but also not worthy of an entry. Sonic Mew | talk to me 22:47, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
Keep, notable example of fictional baby-talk. Kappa 22:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Not encyclopedic. Not interesting. Not worthwhile. Not worth reading. Barely worth taking the time to write this. Gregmg 22:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I've not seen a particularly compelling argument to delete. The list only existed for 1hr 11m before this nomination. [1] Keep for now, and cleanup. Flowerparty ^talk 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So we should wait a week before deleting useless crap? Soltak 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the case of a list it's always going to be difficult to know whether it will develop. Sure, in its current form this list is pretty crap, but the speech seems like an important aspect of the show. If the words were transcribed in IPA I can't imagine it would've been nominated. Flowerparty ^talk 23:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would have to disagree with that. The list would only be notable if there was some sort of special knowledge required to figure out what the babies were saying. It's not terrible difficult to arrive at the conclusions that shampoop = shampoo Soltak 23:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree that it's not particularly subtle, but that's not an argument against the article but against the subject. It is a notable aspect of the show. Flowerparty ^talk 23:36, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        Then it should be merged to the main Ruggats article. In any event, the topic doesn't merit one of its own. Soltak 23:39, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        A merge is fine by me. I didn't vote "merge" because merge votes never seem to lead to a consensus. Actually, looking at the Rugrats article that's pretty poor, too. I guess, like list of Barney & Friends episodes this just isn't the kind of subject that attracts the editors. It's like they're embarassed or something... Flowerparty ^talk 23:49, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gregmg. Word. Nandesuka 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gateman1997 00:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
dewete. Great show, pointless page. Sabine's Sunbird 00:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm the one that started it, and I didn't put it on the main Rugrats page because I hoped it would grow enough to become a full-fledged article. I didn't want it to be just a list of "translated" words; I hoped that it would include things like: 1)Quotes from the show showing the words in context 2)Words that are completely made up rather than being mispronunciations (like "tendy" and "eleventy"), 3)Cute little descriptive phrases, like "No-Shadow Time" for "noon" and "ringy toy" for "cash register". Given the fact that the Rugrats' language forms a central aspect of several episodes (like "ATM machine"/"M&M machine"), I'd say it's a very important and noteworthy aspect of the show.CrazyLegsKC 02:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Eleventy is, if I recall correctly, used in Winnie the Pooh. Regardless, the whole subject could be covered in a few lines in the Rugrats article without the need to sprawl out into it's own page. Sabine's Sunbird 07:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in here that a link to baby talk wouldn't work for. -- Norvy (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a valid Rugrats topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless; silly. -R. fiend 16:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CrazyLegsKC has made a good faith effort to explain why it is necessary as a sub-page of the main article and the subject itself is worthy of inclusion. It's much more relevant than a building that appears in the background of a cut scene from a Pokémon video game. SchmuckyTheCat 16:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.