Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Language adjectives

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep moink 03:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language adjectives

Basically just a list of dictionary definitions. The articles themselves are also pretty superfluous and all the of the information they contain is (and should be) covered by the articles on the individual languages. I propose to delete the listed XXX-phones together with this article. / Peter Isotalo 11:15, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

(added "subst:" to Peter's initial entry) —Wahoofive (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this page but merge and redirect Francophone etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful list. If we are voting on Francophone etc they should all be tagged. Kappa 18:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no chance to become encyclopedic. Francophone has the right to exist because it's use is widespread and because it's a historically significant notion (e.g. in the context of former colonies of France) (same holds for Anglophone and Lusophone). But I fail to see why we would need a "list of words derived using the suffix -(o)phone", which the present article boils down to. — mark ✎ 20:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- So how could I find Lusophone from Francophone? Kappa 22:10, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - With a nice 'see also' section? — mark ✎ 22:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah yes, we could just duplicate this list as a "see also" section at the bottom of each article. Kappa 00:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please note that I was saying that only a few of them really are common and have the right to exist: Anglophone, Francophone, Lusophone (and, only in Canadian contexts, Allophone). — mark ✎ 07:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Useful list. Stancel 23:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to find Lusophone from Francophone. You need to find it from Portuguese language, which is where it should be redirected and merged. But those don't need to be listed; they can be merged with their parent languages without VFD. Question, though: if those articles were all merged like that, would this list still be useful? —Wahoofive (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, I didn't know I didn't need to know about Lusophone, I'm glad you know better than me. Kappa 02:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think Wahoo intended to condescending. Just consider that barely two or three of these terms really have that much value on their own. There simply nothing to them except XXX language. And I would really recommend against using terms in Wikipedia articles as they smack of peackockery./ Peter Isotalo 08:17, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
    - I didn't say you didn't need to know, I said you would be more likely to look for it from Portuguese language than some generic -phone article.—Wahoofive (talk) 16:51, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article and merge each term on the list with its respective language. (Though I'm not sure where to merge Allophone (Quebec) to... Quebec maybe?) --Angr/_comhrá 06:27, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I can see no real distinction between a list of this nature and -phobia which is well-established. Maybe a move to -phone might be in order for the sake of uniformity? (Having said that, some of the terms seem thoroughly clanky: dutchophone?) --Phil | Talk 06:49, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
- As you say yourself, it's not a productive suffix. Only three or four really common variants exists. For the record, I'm excluding Gramophone, Homophone, Ideophone, Microphone, Saxophone and Xylophone from this count. — mark ✎ 07:05, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, that's what it's there for. R adiant _* 09:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)
Delete. Most of them are not actual words and that's the end of the story. --Menchi 00:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - useful, although i like Phil's idea of moving it to -phone. Kingturtle 19:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - useful list, especially when categorized properly. 132.205.15.43 00:47, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.