Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest word in Spanish

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. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Longest word in Spanish[edit]

Orphan. Only one source. There is an AfD for an article on the longest word in Turkish, so I thought that I should create one for this too. Cssiitcic (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as, I dunno, WP:NONSENSE? How about WP:DICDEF? WP:TRIVIA? I dunno, but WP:SOMETHING. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 21:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's just like other stubs. Let it have its own page. Math Cool 10 ^{Sign here!} 21:19, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd like to see a sourced article about the longest words in other languages, rather than stubs for one word in Turkish (muvaffakiyetsizleştiricileştiriveremeyebileceklerimizdenmişsinizcesine), whatever that means, and for one word in Spanish. I'd note that the article asserts that "superextraordinarísimo" is the longest word, and it cites to a source that says that "superextraordinarísimo" is actually not the longest; the stub doesn't mention that the source also lists superextraordinarísimamente and superespectacularísimamente and anticonstitucionalmente and electroencefalografistas. Other than being inaccurate and uninformative, and determined to list only one "longest word" and screwing up even when it comes to that, this is a really really good article. Mandsford (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, please assume good faith. It is certain that the editor who made this article will improve it. 18.96.6.238 (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're supposed to assume good faith with regard to everyone in the discussion... including ME, and anyone else who says something you might not agree with. There is nothing wrong with criticizing an article. With the exception of hoaxes, everyone creates an article in good faith. It's easy to see that you created the article, since you say that it is certain that it will be improved. I'm sorry if I've hurt your feelings, but the source cited doesn't support the statements made in the article itself. Mandsford (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken my friend. Though I didn't make this article, I am assuming it will surely be improved because I'm assuming good faith of the editor who did. My original comment wasn't directed at you specifically as you will note by its indentation so please, WP:AAAGF. 18.96.6.238 (talk) 04:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about Merging Longest word in Spanish, Longest word in Turkish, Donaudampfschiffahrtselektrizitätenhauptbetriebswerkbauunterbeamtengesellschaft, and the longest word in any other languages people drum up to Longest words? Articles can be broken out per WP:SUMMARYSTYLE if they are ever merited. It seems to me that the longest word concept might be notable even when individual longest words are not. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would support this. There's no sense in having separate articles for each word when one article could cover the subject comprehensively. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See what I wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Longest word in Turkish on that point. Is this only-English-gets-special-treatment, not systemic bias on our parts? Do we have any reason to think that there aren't sources talking about Turkish, or Spanish, or Hungarian, longest words, longest placenames, and so forth, as there are sources talking about English language words and names? (Hint: I'm not mentioning Hungarian at random. ☺) Uncle G (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure what you're saying, but if I understand correctly, nobody is saying that we have "Longest English Words" article and a "Longest Words in Other Languages" article. I think that if we had a comprehensive article of "Longest Words" that covered each language's longest words, then that would better serve each word than having a bunch of stubs that will likely never progress beyond that. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 01:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's actually the nub of the question, though: How do we know that longest word in Spanish, and longest word in Turkish don't have the potential to be standalone articles with the amount of content that longest word in English now has? Is assuming that they don't, because they currently haven't expanded beyond stub status and are badly written, and because one doesn't speak the languages and so isn't in posession of the knowledge of this sort of thing that a native speaker would be, not simply systemic bias? Is longest word in English a stub? Is the fact that more is (currently) written there than for other languages simply a reflection of the fact that English speakers know the English language, and so can easily write about it, rather than a true reflection of the extent of actual knowledge to be had in these areas? Uncle G (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's surely a systemic bias problem here, because of a relative paucity of English content on the longest words in non-English languages. That systemic bias will exist if we retain a fleshed-out article on the English word and a bunch of orphaned stubs on other words, and it will remain if we have a comprehensive parent article from which we split out individual languages when they are ready (right now Longest word in English is the only one that would qualify). The source of the systemic bias is lack of content, not article structure. The question is, which structure is best suited for the maintenance and expansion of the content? Baileypalblue (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not the source of the bias that is the issue. It's the effect of the bias. Look at what we're doing. We're considering deleting these articles because of it. Observe that when longest word in English was created, it was created at that very title. It wasn't created at longest word or longest words and then renamed to be language-specific. Those came four years later. I suspect that the editor who created the article had more foresight back in 2001 than we are applying now: that xe expected there eventually to be a "longest word in" article for multiple languages, of which English would be but one. Uncle G (talk) 05:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd say your concerns about deletion are a reason to support merging the material into a parent article -- it's less likely to be deleted there than in a series of marginal stubs. It's a means of protection. I think you already support the idea of having such a parent article -- do you think we have enough material now to flesh out such an article without merging in material from its constituents? Baileypalblue (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure trivia. I see this being in a sourced list of some sort, but not in standalone article form. §FreeRangeFrog 05:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The longest word in Spanish may belong on the Spanish Wiki, or conversely, we could have a Longest Word in Each Language-type article. But there is no real point I see in having a longest-word article for an individual world langusge on the English wiki. Eauhomme (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my comments on the same concept for Turkish. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced. It is not a dictionary definition, but rather a description of what is the longest word, not the type of info you would find in a dictionary. It would be worth creating a List of longest words in each language. It could list Antidisestablishmentarianism (English) along with this and those of every language for which this could be sourced. Sebwite (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is sourced, useful for college student users, and encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article is sourced, encyclopedic, and the subject notable. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 04:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but I would not object to merging into Longest words, and splitting out when and if enough reliable source material is found to make this more than a stub, like Longest word in English. DHowell (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Merge, and Rename. Merge all the "Longest word in _____" articles into Longest word in English, then rename it "Longest words." Macarion (talk) 01:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a mention in Spanish language. Not suitable enough for its own article, and the information belongs within its proper context. Themfromspace (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2009 (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.