Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 639-1 language matrix

: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 Transwiki. Based on the comments, there is an consensus to transwiki, as Wiktionary and Wikibooks are not interested, the third most popular option is Wikiversity. MBisanz ^talk 05:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

=[[ISO 639-1 language matrix]]=

:{{la|ISO 639-1 language matrix}} ([{{fullurl:ISO 639-1 language matrix|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISO 639-1 language matrix}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This is useful, but not encyclopedic. Maybe a transwiki to b: or v:, or meta? — This, that, and the other 10:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment No context of why or what the table constitutes to a non initiate - or why or what it might mean - I would put the use to zilch without adequate lead paragraph and some refs at least Satu Suro 10:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
So non-linguists know, it's a grid of language names in different (ISO 639-1) languages. I agree, would need a real rejig to be any good. — This, that, and the other 11:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Wiktionary already does translations, of these and other words. See the "Translations" sections of "English" and "German", for just two of many examples. It is, after all, intended to be (amongst other things) a translating dictionary of all words from all languages. Wiktionary does better than this article, too. Notice how it translates different senses of a word differently. This matrix has nothing to do with what ISO 639-1 actually defines, since that standard defines codes for languages, not names. This is, essentially, a mini-dictionary providing (poor) translation of language names, merely using the ISO 639-1 codes as its row and column indices. Wiktionary already does that (c.f. wikt:de:Deutsch, wikt:de:German, wikt:en:Deutsch, and wikt:en:German), and does it better. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Uncle G (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Userfy or transwiki ? per comments above. Why didn't the nominator transwiki this without an unnecessary AfD? Ikip (talk) 16:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Because transwikification is not a back-door route to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Comment does this duplicate List of ISO 639-1 codes ? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Transwiki wiktionary? wikibooks? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Wiktionary already has better, and Wikibooks is not a dictionary either. Uncle G (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
~~Remove the non-English content and merge to ISO 639-1.~~ Wronkiew (talk) 05:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Note: please read the note on my talk page before voting (near the bottom, you'll find it). — This, that, and the other [talk] 10:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
:I made my comment without considering List of ISO 639-1 codes. I agree with Uncle G above. The improvements this page makes over the code list have little relevance to ISO 639-1. Wiktionary already provides translations between language names. The author has repeatedly blanked the article, so presumably userfy will not result in any improvements. I don't think a redirect would be useful because readers are unlikely to search for this title specifically and no article links to it. However, I could be convinced otherwise. I think the best option here is delete. Wronkiew (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2009 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.