Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Language

Language

This is a list of transcluded deletion debates involving language. It is maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting as a test of sorted deletion. This list includes a sublist of debates on the deletion of articles about individual words and phrases.

For a list of article deletions sorted by day, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. For a list of observed precedents in VfD voting, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents. For general information on Wikipedia deletion policy, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Different languages mean different meanings.

Nearly-coherent essay that, when you get down to it, is original research. Also it's poorly named. DS 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Original Research. -Satori 18:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; essay, OR. Jaxl | talk 19:12, 5 August 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.

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 RELIST. This is strictly a no-consensus, but with only two divergent votes, I'm going to relist in hopes of a better debate. Splash 18:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic proverbs

Delete this because there's virtually no content to it. It's a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia, a link to a list of Scottish Gaelic proverbs at Wikisource, a link to proverb, and some external links, held together by a dicdef. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Scots Gaelic perhaps? DavidConrad 04:58, 1 August 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.

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 No consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Latin proverbs

This was transwikied to wikiquote a while back (q:Latin proverbs), and now exists as an exact copy there. As Angela, Arpingstone, and Quadell have said on the talk page, this is an unencyclopedic list of phrases, and there is precedent for having these on Wikiquote. This is what Wikipeda is not. Therefore, delete. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- This isn't the Latin Wikipedia. - Longhair | Talk 09:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Invites endless proverb lists in thousands of articles that serve little encyclopedic purpose. -- Xaa 09:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this list links to articles and as I understand they are good to stay so this list organizes and gives context. There are dozens of embarassingly silly lists why remove this one that is valuable. Kpjas 11:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic, as demonstrated by the blue links. Kappa 13:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful. Just look at the transwiki links: français, Italiano, Polskim Română, Nederlands, Slovenščina, Српски / Srpski, Svenska. I see we've got out own "Carthago delenda est" tendency alive and kicking on Vicipedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to link to the somewhat larger list of Wikiquote latin phrases. Sure all the "endless proverb lists" that this might invite may need deleting, but this article does serve an organizational purpose. Sirmob 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. useful ergo encyclopedic. →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 20:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as duplication of wikiquote article. --Tim Pope 20:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and useful. —Seselwa 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful as a glossary, I think these proverbs are so common that it is encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There does seem to be a precedent for not keeping pages of proverbs on wikipedia, but moving them to wikiquote instead. The links to English, French, German and Portugese proverbs provided at the bottom of the Latin proverbs page are all simple redirects to Wikiquote. Japanese, Polish and Spanish proverbs send one to a brief description of their use, and then once again redirect to wikiquote. Chinese proverbs trys to send one to wiktionary, but that may have been an accidental mistake. Therefor, we either need to send this page to wikiquote, or pull dozens of pages off of there, and back here. (Or at least duplicate the most important proverbs.) However, I don't know which way it should go. --Icelight 18:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see what Wikiquote has to do with it. These are proverbs (the non-proverbs, such as mottos and epigrams, should be removed) and have no place on Wikiquote, not least because they can seldom be attributed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you are misunderstanding the situation (and Wikiquote). Proverbs have always been part of Wikiquote's mandate, since it's founding. They are featured prominently on the main page (just take a look). In fact, Wikiquote's very first, pitful, main page consisted of three links: Albert Einstein, Zen proverbs, and Irish proverbs. This kind of thing is the reason we have Wikiquote. And we at Wikipedia are not the ones to make Wikiquote policy. Also, you're pointing to the other Wikipedias is a bit of a red herring, because all of the Wikipedias have developed their own criteria for inclusion, plenty of subjects have been deleted here but kept on another 'Pedia, or vice versa. We don't follow their precedent, and none of the reasons cited here, like "useful" or "has blue links," make this article encyclopedic. Wiktionary and Wikibooks are both, but we certainly don't want to duplicate them, they still aren't encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 21:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll take all that on board, while still being completely unable to see that there's a good argument for deletion. If we don't follow Wikiquote's precent, nor that of any of the non-English Wikipedias, then I suggest we completely ignore their existence and just judge the proverbs on their encyclopedic quality, which I think is well nigh unimpeachable. --14:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, please. I have used it more than once. Jonathunder 14:15, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
• Keep, I have used this many times and often wouldn't have thought to look in wikiquote. If wikipedia's search engine gets better, to the point where it automatically searches wiktionary, wikiquote, et cetera then perhaps we can revisit the issue. Until then, keep it in both places and we'll periodically merge them. (It is a nuisance that I often must search both the Latin proverbs and the Latin phrases pages for whichever one I'm thinking of; I was just looking for quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur again tonight). If I use it (as a regular contributor here) then I have to presume that there are thousands silent users who also find it useful.JimD 06:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just a list, no information about Latin proverbs, compare with Japanese proverbs. Marc Mongenet 23:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Just for clarification, do you think that the article needs a paragraph or two about latin proverbs, or needs to consist only of a paragraph or two about latin proverbs. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 23:34, August 15, 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Otche nash

I just transwikied this to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Otche nash). It's a translation of a prayer into a bunch of languages. Not encyclopedic, and as already transwikied, delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Yeah, good transwiki move. Doesn't belong here. Kushboy 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. feydey 20:25, 8 August 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.

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)

Rugrats vocabulary

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • So we should wait a week before deleting useless crap? Soltak 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
• Delete per Gregmg. Word. Nandesuka 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Gateman1997 00:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• dewete. Great show, pointless page. Sabine's Sunbird 00:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Delete Nothing in here that a link to baby talk wouldn't work for. -- Norvy (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a valid Rugrats topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless; silly. -R. fiend 16:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Il Brud

This article is fancruft. Because of this I nominate and support this article for deletion. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• (vfd procedure completed Thue | talk 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, too trivial, no google hits. Thue | talk 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at a deliberate pace--fancruft is not a speedy criterion. Meelar (talk) 19:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only Google hit is this page. :p — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a hoax; this is a "dialect" of a language which is basically a substitution cypher. 70.249.219.99 22:30, 4 August 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.

Language

This is a list of transcluded deletion debates involving language. It is maintained by Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting as a test of sorted deletion. This list includes a sublist of debates on the deletion of articles about individual words and phrases.

For a list of article deletions sorted by day, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. For a list of observed precedents in VfD voting, please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Precedents. For general information on Wikipedia deletion policy, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

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 Delete --Allen3 ^talk 16:54, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Different languages mean different meanings.

Nearly-coherent essay that, when you get down to it, is original research. Also it's poorly named. DS 17:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Original Research. -Satori 18:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; essay, OR. Jaxl | talk 19:12, 5 August 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.

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 RELIST. This is strictly a no-consensus, but with only two divergent votes, I'm going to relist in hopes of a better debate. Splash 18:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Scottish Gaelic proverbs

Delete this because there's virtually no content to it. It's a link to the Scottish Gaelic Wikipedia, a link to a list of Scottish Gaelic proverbs at Wikisource, a link to proverb, and some external links, held together by a dicdef. Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:46, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

• Merge with Scots Gaelic perhaps? DavidConrad 04:58, 1 August 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.

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 No consensus. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 11:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Latin proverbs

This was transwikied to wikiquote a while back (q:Latin proverbs), and now exists as an exact copy there. As Angela, Arpingstone, and Quadell have said on the talk page, this is an unencyclopedic list of phrases, and there is precedent for having these on Wikiquote. This is what Wikipeda is not. Therefore, delete. Dmcdevit·t 09:17, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete -- This isn't the Latin Wikipedia. - Longhair | Talk 09:18, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Invites endless proverb lists in thousands of articles that serve little encyclopedic purpose. -- Xaa 09:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - this list links to articles and as I understand they are good to stay so this list organizes and gives context. There are dozens of embarassingly silly lists why remove this one that is valuable. Kpjas 11:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic, as demonstrated by the blue links. Kappa 13:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful. Just look at the transwiki links: français, Italiano, Polskim Română, Nederlands, Slovenščina, Српски / Srpski, Svenska. I see we've got out own "Carthago delenda est" tendency alive and kicking on Vicipedia. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 15:15, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but it wouldn't be a bad thing to link to the somewhat larger list of Wikiquote latin phrases. Sure all the "endless proverb lists" that this might invite may need deleting, but this article does serve an organizational purpose. Sirmob 17:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. useful ergo encyclopedic. →uber nemo→ ^{talk edits} 20:31, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
• delete as duplication of wikiquote article. --Tim Pope 20:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and useful. —Seselwa 03:30, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful as a glossary, I think these proverbs are so common that it is encyclopedic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:46, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment There does seem to be a precedent for not keeping pages of proverbs on wikipedia, but moving them to wikiquote instead. The links to English, French, German and Portugese proverbs provided at the bottom of the Latin proverbs page are all simple redirects to Wikiquote. Japanese, Polish and Spanish proverbs send one to a brief description of their use, and then once again redirect to wikiquote. Chinese proverbs trys to send one to wiktionary, but that may have been an accidental mistake. Therefor, we either need to send this page to wikiquote, or pull dozens of pages off of there, and back here. (Or at least duplicate the most important proverbs.) However, I don't know which way it should go. --Icelight 18:03, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see what Wikiquote has to do with it. These are proverbs (the non-proverbs, such as mottos and epigrams, should be removed) and have no place on Wikiquote, not least because they can seldom be attributed. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 18:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you are misunderstanding the situation (and Wikiquote). Proverbs have always been part of Wikiquote's mandate, since it's founding. They are featured prominently on the main page (just take a look). In fact, Wikiquote's very first, pitful, main page consisted of three links: Albert Einstein, Zen proverbs, and Irish proverbs. This kind of thing is the reason we have Wikiquote. And we at Wikipedia are not the ones to make Wikiquote policy. Also, you're pointing to the other Wikipedias is a bit of a red herring, because all of the Wikipedias have developed their own criteria for inclusion, plenty of subjects have been deleted here but kept on another 'Pedia, or vice versa. We don't follow their precedent, and none of the reasons cited here, like "useful" or "has blue links," make this article encyclopedic. Wiktionary and Wikibooks are both, but we certainly don't want to duplicate them, they still aren't encyclopedic. Dmcdevit·t 21:16, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
      • Okay, I'll take all that on board, while still being completely unable to see that there's a good argument for deletion. If we don't follow Wikiquote's precent, nor that of any of the non-English Wikipedias, then I suggest we completely ignore their existence and just judge the proverbs on their encyclopedic quality, which I think is well nigh unimpeachable. --14:46, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, please. I have used it more than once. Jonathunder 14:15, 2005 August 12 (UTC)
• Keep, I have used this many times and often wouldn't have thought to look in wikiquote. If wikipedia's search engine gets better, to the point where it automatically searches wiktionary, wikiquote, et cetera then perhaps we can revisit the issue. Until then, keep it in both places and we'll periodically merge them. (It is a nuisance that I often must search both the Latin proverbs and the Latin phrases pages for whichever one I'm thinking of; I was just looking for quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur again tonight). If I use it (as a regular contributor here) then I have to presume that there are thousands silent users who also find it useful.JimD 06:54, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, just a list, no information about Latin proverbs, compare with Japanese proverbs. Marc Mongenet 23:19, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

• Just for clarification, do you think that the article needs a paragraph or two about latin proverbs, or needs to consist only of a paragraph or two about latin proverbs. →ubεr nεmo→ ^lóquï 23:34, August 15, 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Otche nash

I just transwikied this to Wikisource (wikisource:Transwiki:Otche nash). It's a translation of a prayer into a bunch of languages. Not encyclopedic, and as already transwikied, delete. Dmcdevit·t 05:43, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Yeah, good transwiki move. Doesn't belong here. Kushboy 06:22, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. feydey 20:25, 8 August 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.

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)

Rugrats vocabulary

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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Hmm, I've not seen a particularly compelling argument to delete. The list only existed for 1hr 11m before this nomination. [2] Keep for now, and cleanup. Flowerparty ^talk 23:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • So we should wait a week before deleting useless crap? Soltak 23:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • 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)
          • 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)
            • 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)
• Delete per Gregmg. Word. Nandesuka 23:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Gateman1997 00:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• dewete. Great show, pointless page. Sabine's Sunbird 00:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Delete Nothing in here that a link to baby talk wouldn't work for. -- Norvy (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems like a valid Rugrats topic. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Pointless; silly. -R. fiend 16:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
• 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)
• 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.

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 delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Il Brud

This article is fancruft. Because of this I nominate and support this article for deletion. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:44, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• (vfd procedure completed Thue | talk 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC))
• Delete, too trivial, no google hits. Thue | talk 19:52, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete at a deliberate pace--fancruft is not a speedy criterion. Meelar (talk) 19:53, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Only Google hit is this page. :p — Stevey7788 (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Looks like a hoax; this is a "dialect" of a language which is basically a substitution cypher. 70.249.219.99 22:30, 4 August 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.