Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Chinese words of English origin

: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. Braincricket's argument in particular has not been refuted by the delete voters. -Scottywong User talk:Scottywong 16:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

=[[List of Chinese words of English origin]]=

:{{la|List of Chinese words of English origin}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Chinese_words_of_English_origin Stats])

:({{Find sources|List of Chinese words of English origin}})

Unnecessary, unsourced, non-notable trivia, as per Wikipedia's notability guideline, and there are only two items on it. Seems pointless. TBr and ley 19:32, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete does not appear to have sources to meet the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 01:02, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete Non-notable trivia. Hue Sat Lum 19:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Changed to Weak keep, see below. Hue Sat Lum 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
These articles need to be taken into consideration if such articles are to be dismissed as trivia. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Weak keep Similar to other articles in this category that Phil Bridger pointed out, but unreferenced and needing cleanup. Hue Sat Lum 14:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep per WP:OUTCOMES - when such artciles in the category come up, we usually, but not always, keep them. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced contested information (WP:V), also because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and there's no indication of the topic's notability. Sandstein 08:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

:*Nobody has contested the accuracy of any of the article's content. Are you doing so? Phil Bridger (talk) 08:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Keep. According to WP:LISTN, "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources...." Well, [http://books.google.com/books?id=QWNj5Yj6_CgC&pg=PA347&lpg=PA347&dq=English+loanwords+in+Cantonese&source=bl&ots=0oRXZd05Dw&sig=Ss39kiD28s624BlW8uCeauYAi6g&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lMJ6UOm_MdSy0AGrzYC4Cg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=English%20loanwords%20in%20Cantonese&f=false Modern Cantonese Phonology] spends about 60 pages on it in the chapter "English loanwords in Cantonese". There's also [http://books.google.com/books?id=y-gXOAAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:%22Wendy+Yeun-wen+Pao%22&source=bl&ots=k9vnuxmHwe&sig=z3FuKXfkfzZ2GZLkXlJy_3yREfE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DcR6UKjgLsT00gHqu4HgDw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA A Study of English Loanwords in Chinese Through Chinese Newswriting]. Seems to be a topic that is discussed in books on Chinese etymology and phonology, so I think it qualifies for a stand-alone list. I suggest expansion, rather than deletion. Braincricket (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep per Braincricket and Bearian. Under verifiable; sources do exist that could support it, even though it's in a poor state of development. Expand and reference, don't delete. --Batard0 (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2012 (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.