Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese abbreviated and contracted words
In this article, we will deeply explore the fascinating world of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese abbreviated and contracted words. From its origins to its relevance today, we will immerse ourselves in an exhaustive analysis that will allow us to fully understand the importance of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese abbreviated and contracted words in various aspects of society. Through extensive research, we will examine its impacts, benefits, challenges and possible solutions, with the goal of providing a complete and enriching overview of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese abbreviated and contracted words. Furthermore, throughout this article, we will learn about testimonials, case studies, statistical data and expert opinions, which will allow us to broaden our perspective and obtain a comprehensive vision of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese abbreviated and contracted words.
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Japanese abbreviated and contracted words (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unsourced since 2005. This feels more like a grammar/foreign language textbook rather than encyclopedia entry, and I'm not sure that it truly is intelligible to people with no familiarity with Japanese and reading Japanese characters. Possibly fails Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but more broadly I think this fails WP:NOTGUIDE as it it seems to be doing the work of a language instructional manual.4meter4 (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- The article could do with some cleanup, but this is well covered in linguistics research (e.g. ) and TNT would be overkill. I'm not sure how an article on a linguistic feature in Japanese is supposed to both be intelligible to someone with no familiarity with the language, while also avoiding "doing the work of a language instructional manual". Keep. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 14:50, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think you missed my point that this type of content is not in our scope. We are not a how to speak/read Japanese guide or a guide to Japanese grammar.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- If you think this rises to the level of a how-to guide (and one that cannot be addressed without TNT) you must be reading a different article. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 21:33, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- I think you missed my point that this type of content is not in our scope. We are not a how to speak/read Japanese guide or a guide to Japanese grammar.4meter4 (talk) 16:08, 13 December 2025 (UTC)
- Keep and add references. As a list of abbreviations this would fall afoul of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but as an analysis of a linguistic phenomenon it is notable and encyclopedic. The article does not appear to be instructional to any great degree, and it is standard for articles on linguistics to contain examples. Dekimasuよ! 09:38, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Dekimasu: Not that this really matters in the context of your vote, but that is a WP:MISUSEOFINDISCRIMINATE. This article doesn't fit any one of the four specific criteria nor the general criteria at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The general criteria is specific to data and this article is not data driven. Please re-read that policy if you haven't read it in a while. Editors need to stop and think before citing that policy as it is very specific to only these circumstances:
data
or RAWDATA (which this isn't),summary-only descriptions of works
(which this also isn't),lyrics database
(which this also isn't), andexhaustive logs of software updates
(which this isn't). In short, INDISCRIMINATE is not applicable to this article's content. Best.4meter4 (talk) 12:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)- That clearly is not an exhaustive list, see MOS:TRIVIA's lead section for example. It would not be possible to list the infinite number of ways to collect data indiscriminately on Wikipedia, and the community's interpretation of the policy reflects this. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The policy as formed at the community discussion was specifically addressing raw data. The guideline language is clearly focused, and it doesn't leave room for an open-ended application in the way that you suggest. This policy is often mis-cited at AFD because editors assume indiscriminate applies to fancruft content, but in most cases that policy isn’t relevant at all to fancruft issues. We don’t add opinions into guidelines, we actually follow and apply the guideline as written.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- As you noted, it is neither here nor there (and WP:NOT is a policy, not a guideline), but the root difference between the interpretations seems to be what constitutes "data". WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Absent contextualization, a collection of data is indiscriminate whether it is numerical or lexical. Other parts of the same section point directly to WP:NLIST; that specifically notes that the topic must be covered in independent sources as a "group or set", which was the crux of my comment. Best, Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Undoubtedly the language at NLIST is relevant; although I wouldn't call this page a list article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- As you noted, it is neither here nor there (and WP:NOT is a policy, not a guideline), but the root difference between the interpretations seems to be what constitutes "data". WP:INDISCRIMINATE states, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Absent contextualization, a collection of data is indiscriminate whether it is numerical or lexical. Other parts of the same section point directly to WP:NLIST; that specifically notes that the topic must be covered in independent sources as a "group or set", which was the crux of my comment. Best, Dekimasuよ! 19:48, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- Incorrect. The policy as formed at the community discussion was specifically addressing raw data. The guideline language is clearly focused, and it doesn't leave room for an open-ended application in the way that you suggest. This policy is often mis-cited at AFD because editors assume indiscriminate applies to fancruft content, but in most cases that policy isn’t relevant at all to fancruft issues. We don’t add opinions into guidelines, we actually follow and apply the guideline as written.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- That clearly is not an exhaustive list, see MOS:TRIVIA's lead section for example. It would not be possible to list the infinite number of ways to collect data indiscriminately on Wikipedia, and the community's interpretation of the policy reflects this. REAL_MOUSE_IRL talk 13:36, 14 December 2025 (UTC)
- @Dekimasu: Not that this really matters in the context of your vote, but that is a WP:MISUSEOFINDISCRIMINATE. This article doesn't fit any one of the four specific criteria nor the general criteria at WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The general criteria is specific to data and this article is not data driven. Please re-read that policy if you haven't read it in a while. Editors need to stop and think before citing that policy as it is very specific to only these circumstances: