Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glossary of sumo terms

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. Sala Skan 11:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of sumo terms[edit]

WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fill these out over at wiktionary and link to that if needed. No the existence of other glossary articles is not evidence that this should be kept. Only that their existence should be examined. Crossmr 21:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sumo is a full-fledged sport with a thousand years of history and is chock full of words confusing to the new or even not so new fan. It is difficult to come up with English equivalent words in articles, so the easiest way is to make a link to a sumo glossary to help people out. I started the glossary because it was designed to replace a lot to tiny one or two sentence articles that were being used to define sumo terms that came up in other articles. This glossary is necessary, if not more necessary than most sports' glossaries. And besides, a glossary is not a dictionary. Malnova 22:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have a list of words and definitions. That is no different than a dictionary.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is different from a dictionary in that it is a collection of related words and their definitions, rather than separate pages for each term/ --Yuu.david 08:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because glossaries are an integral part of wikipeida. If that was not the case, all of these would have to be deleted. While under discussion by various people, the opinion stated for deletion of this article does not seem to follow wikipolicy.XinJeisan 22:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other articles is not a reason to keep this article. On its own it fails policy.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't make the argument on its own. It follows Wikiepdia consensus and official policy. (See here, here, here, as well as Wikipedia:Contents). Consensus and policy is that glossaries are an integral part of wikipedia. XinJeisan 16:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact is, many sports and other specific endeavors do have a specialized jargon that justifies their having an encyclopedia article. This page could certainly be expanded to cover the origins of the terms, but I don't think it merits deletion. If you wish to discuss the issue of glossaries on Wikipedia overall, then I suggest taking it up at the Village Pump. FrozenPurpleCube 22:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the page is currently unreferenced, which is a problem, but I assume one that can be resolved with sources. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this point is that, if referenced, the only valid referring body available is a dictionary. --Yuu.david 08:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and encyclopedic. A glossary is a valid part of an article, and when an article and its glossary get big enough the glossary may be separated to improve readability. Fg2 01:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump policy. If words need definition that is the job of wiktionary.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful and well-done article. No reason to delete at all.MightyAtom 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, WP:ILIKEIT doesn't trump policy.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Explains sporting terms, not a dictionary-type article. Sources will not be a problem. Pawnkingthree 13:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have words, you have definitions. That is the extent of the article. It couldn't be anymore a dictionary. Whether they're sports words, or a list of words you thought up while sitting in the living room it amounts to the same thing. Wikipedia has a sister project for this very thing.--Crossmr 02:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is so much terminology in sumo, it requires a separate page. Image how huge the sumo article would be if everything was kept in one place. Groink 07:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why we have inter-wiki links to wiktionary. It wouldn't change the size of the sumo article at all.--Crossmr 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly Keep Despite being simple to the point of uselessness (someone needs to add more) this article is valid under wikipedia standards, especially considering special circumstances, these being the fact that these terms are essentially equivalent to the explanation of, say, the fastball, and the fact that the article refers to another language, in which translation (usually the job of a dictionary, but necessary here) is required for understanding in English. Under the understanding propagated by the instigator of this discussion, all articles referencing terms in a different language would be suspect if a certain amount of history or explanatory information was not included; obviously not a possibility, but rather a waste of time. A better discussion would be the merger of this article with that of something like the kimarite article. --Yuu.david 08:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its not valid under wikipedia standars. That's my point. Its a dictionary, and policy dictates that we're not a dictionary. We have a dictionary wiki for that purpose, which can be linked from the article.--Crossmr 12:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Yuu.david is trying to say is that the English Wikitionary is for English words. It is not meant to be used for a glossary of words from a foreign language like Japanese. And this is not just me saying this... If you read Wikitionary's main page, section "Wikitionary in other language", you will see that it says only English words are allowed, and that foreign words should be placed in its appropriate Wikitionary. The problem with Japanese, however, is that it is a pictoral writing system and not arabic like English or French. The logic would be to put these terms in the Japanese Wikitionary, but then no English-reading person would be able to read kanji. Groink 07:35, 14 July 2007 (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.