Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ideophones by language

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. T. Canens (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_ideophones_by_language[edit]

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

Seems to meet AfD criteria A1/A7. This is redundant with the main article Ideophones and seems highly questionable listcruft, as also noted on Talk:List_of_ideophones_by_language by a different user. To see the problem in a nutshell, consider the non-extant articles List of nouns by language, List of adverbs by language, List of adjectives by language, List of verbs by language. They are perfectly parallel: ideophones are a class of words just like nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. These other articles don't exist because (I guess) everybody understands they would not belong here but in Wiktionary (if anywhere). If this list stays as haphazard as it (necessarily) is, it is redundant, incomplete, and useless. If it were to be more systematically done, it would be a dictionary in itself and therefore belong in Wiktionary not Wikipedia. Janice Patrick (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to User:Zadignose, posting on the talk page 2 years ago (the article has seen little meaningful edits since then): "This "list" seems ill conceived. It cannot succeed in listing even a tiny fraction of the items which could theoretically be included. It's similar to having a page called "list of words," with six or seven words on it, arbitrarily chosen. For instance, it should be relatively easy to list several hundred Korean ideophones, so why are these particular four items selected. If we put ideophones from all languages, it would run into thousands of items, and the page would resemble a jumbled heap of trivial data." Janice Patrick (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as indiscriminate. If, as the lead suggests, the intention is to list every ideophone in every language except English, then it can never hope to be complete. I can't imagine discriminating criteria for a WP:Stand-alone list on this topic that would satisfy WP:Notability. Cnilep (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not Wiktionary Spiderone 20:49, 19 January 2017 (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.