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

:{{la|List of English words of Ukrainian origin}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_English_words_of_Ukrainian_origin Stats])

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

We already do this at en.wikt, specifically here. I would nominate everything currently in :Category:Lists_of_English_words_of_foreign_origin if I had the patience to wade through all the instructions and procedures (sorry if I missed a step). See WP:NOT#DIC. Gamren (talk) 15:13, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see the point of this. And also, we have another wiki for this. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 16:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

• Pinging List of English words of Ukrainian origin creator {{user|Mzajac}}. Pinging contributors {{user|Aleksandr Grigoryev}} and {{user|Grutness}}.

  List of Ukrainian terms was merged into List of English words of Ukrainian origin. Pinging List of Ukrainian terms creator {{user|Altenmann}}. Pinging contributors {{user|Yakudza}} and {{user|Alex Bakharev}}.

  Are there any sources that establish that "List of English words of Ukrainian origin" passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list"?

  Is there a good target to merge this article to if it does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists?

  Cunard (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: I was able to find this brief mention:
  1. {{cite book |editor-last1=Antor |editor-first1=Heinz |editor-last2=Bölling |editor-first2=Gordon |editor-last3=Kern-Stähler |editor-first3=Annette |editor-last4=Stierstorfer |editor-first4=Klaus |date=2005 |title=Refractions of Canada in European Literature and Culture |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=e5IYCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA89 |location=Berlin |publisher=Walter de Gruyter |page=89 |isbn=3110919249 |accessdate=2017-07-12 }}

     The book notes:

     Just a Kommedia by Nika Rylski is about preservation and assimilation, tradition and the new environment; and the relationship between the two poles is expressed by cultural symbols and language. The Maple Leaf and the Ukrainian flag stand side by side. The national anthem of the Ukraine mingles with that of Canada. Items on the menu are Kasha and Big Mac, Borscht and Hot Dog, and in parts of the text Ukranian expressions intrude on the English dialogue thereby dividing and transcending the two worlds.

  This mentions Kasha and Borscht.
  But it by itself is not enough to pass Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists.

  Cunard (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Agree, per nom. Thank you for inviting. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep: Loanwords and borrowings is a valid academic topic. There are many books on the subject of loanwords in particular languages and from particular languages ([https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&biw=1222&bih=943&tbm=bks&q=loanwords&oq=loanwords&gs_l=serp.3...1201378.1201378.0.1201495.1.1.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.serp..1.0.0.d3gwx6gV778 book search]; titles include Spanish Loanwords in the English Language, Loanwords in Japanese, Native American Loanwords in Current English, Arabic and Persian Loanwords in Tagalog, etc.). The list of loanwords in Wiktionary is not a substitute for this one: a list of article titles is not a substitute for a glossary, which has terms with accompanying glosses or annotations. Despite the many books on similar subjects, there is very little specifically about Ukrainian loanwords in English. One example is a book chapter by the chief editor of the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, which includes some discussion and also a glossary: Katherine Barber (2008), Only in Canada: A Treasury of Canadian Language, Toronto: Oxford University Press, p. 79 ([https://www.amazon.ca/Only-Canada-You-Say-Treasury/dp/0195429842 preview on Amazon]). This is a small subject, and suffers from systemic bias in Wikipedia as well as globally. All the more reason not to delete this list or related articles. —Michael Z. 2017-07-14 01:20 z

• Keep: First and foremost, this is a valid academic subject. Second, we have articles called List of English words of X origin for literally around a hundred languages. Ok, the fact that other stuff exists is not a reason to keep as such. Still, if we have a similar article for almost any other European language (and we do), then why pick out the Ukrainian one in particular for deletion? Either start a discussion to delete all such articles (and I'd oppose it if the discussion came up, as it is a very valid academic subject) or speedy keep this one. Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

• Keep It's misleading to say that this exact same thing is on Wiktionary, as the Wikipedia page offers more information (including subcategorisation and word meanings). The topic of loan words and words from foreign languages is clearly notable, and you could argue that subdividing that by language is a sensible way of representing a notable topic in a manageable way (creating subpages for large topics is allowed). --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CLN. While there is a category for this, the list itself gives more information and context for each entry. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments already offered by other editors affirming the validity as an academic subject. Loanword studies are entry level linguistics, ergo certainly not OSE or NOT#DIC. All of the related articles should be challenged for deletion base solid policy and guideline rationales, or this nomination and support for deletion read as arguments to avoid in deletion discussion. I'm not doubting the good faith of the nomination or those who agree with deletion: I'm wondering at why this was started on a random article in the group rather than presenting a solid argument for the elimination of all of the related article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.