Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singlish vocabulary (3rd nomination)

: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. I note, aside from the arguments already below, that WP:DICT does not discuss vocabulary, but rather individual words. Glossaries have, by consensus, often been kept . That this article may need rewriting is not a reason for deletion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

=[[Singlish vocabulary]]=

AfDs for this article:

{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singlish vocabulary}}

:{{la|Singlish vocabulary}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Singlish_vocabulary_(3rd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Singlish vocabulary}})

Delete, Wiki is not a Dictionary. Most of the phrases are unsourced and the Singlish article seems to already cover vocabulary. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 22. Snotbot t • c » 02:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Agree something should be done, but not 100% sure deletion is the only way, since quite some alternatives were proposed in the earlier 2 deletion discussions. Curious to see the article seems to be quite actively edited be many editors. Apparently people care and maybe they just need some help on format/location of this list. Are there any new insights since the previous 2 deletion discussions? A new discussion in ignorance of the last discussion may be inefficient. LazyStarryNights (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep References prove this is a real thing, and clearly notable enough to be in this encyclopedia. Dream Focus 03:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

::User:Dream Focus I'm not saying Singlish should be deleted just this breakaway article on Vocabulary. See specifically this section within the Singlish article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singlish#Singlish_Phrases. That's when we have to ask is it worth the duplication and ask what wiki is and what is it not? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

:Category:Slang by nationality shows other languages have side articles explaining the slang in their nation. It wouldn't all fit in the main article, therefore this is a valid content fork. Dream Focus 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tito☸Dutta 19:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Delete per WP:DICT or start a Singlish Wiktionary. An article on Singlish belongs in Wikipedia, a Singlish dictionary does not. --Michig (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Delete - As per above Wiki is not a dictionary. Article about Singlish is fine just not a dictionary. Caffeyw (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Keep - The topic of the article is interesting, relevant, and there are plenty of reliable sources (a number already in the references in the article, and others that could be added). Singlish differs from conventional English not only in vocabulary, but in structure, and its use in Singaporean society is fascinating as well - therefore it is not outlandish to have a subarticle on vocabulary and a master article on Singlish. Commentators referring to "not a dictionary" above are correct as to their observation, but the implication should be to cut down those elements of the article that are just a dictionary and expand the top matter even further, i.e. edit the article not delete it. Martinp (talk) 12:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::Reaffirm my Keep !vote. Have now looked at the Singlish article. It is full of fascinating detail; this article is clearly positioned as a subarticle of it. Singlish is 107k long, so a subarticle is not a bad idea. And given the amount of structural information in the Singlish article, there is clearly benefit for the interested reader in illustrating somewhere, somehow with concrete examples of phrases, vocabulary, and their translation. The result is better understanding of Singlish, not "aid in translating a random word I overheard". Therefore the argument to delete just because it is like a dictionary does not apply. Now I agree that there's a lot of opportunity to editorially improve the structure of both this article and Singlish - but I don't see anything that has changed from the situation in the previous AFDs which resulted in Keep and No consensus closes. Martinp (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep per Dreamfocuses comments. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Transwiki the wordlist to wiktionary and keep the prose content. Singlish could have a Singlish grammar article split out, and then it would be short enough to merge into? KleptomaniacViolet (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC) — KleptomaniacViolet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

: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.