Deletion of List of languages by number of words

Comment: So, first of all, it definitely cannot keep the current title/frame. There is no objective number of words. Language is constantly developing, and even if we took a snapshot, none of these publications ''actually'' capture the whole language. In English, for example, you'd have to combine the OED with all manner of specialized/technical/scientific jargon, throw Urban Dictionary in there, etc. It ''is'' interesting, however, to think about a list of dictionaries by number of words -- and there are plenty of sources in the history of dictionaries/lexicography as well as the histories of reference, encyclopedias, writing, etc. that would support such a list. The difficult thing is finding sources that span up to the present, and then presenting them in a way that isn't . Ideally, we'd be drawing from other reliable sources' similar lists -- and this list does not appear to cite any such sources, as far as I can see... &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I'm not sure that the topic of List of dictionaries by number of words has received much attention from independent reliable sources, let alone the topic of the article under discussion. Borders on 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Listcruft (WP:LISTCRUFT)

Comment: dubious |original research. I am pretty much sure the comparison is 'oranges vs apples', because different vocabularies are quite possibly based in different  language registers; eg. some include obsolete words, while other are not, etc. Also, coverage of slangs, argot, jargons, regionalisms an other corpora. In other words I concur with those who say this article must be based on RS which compare languages by word count
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: This is at best a |synthesis of not-totally-comparable data. It's vanishingly unlikely that, say, Duden and Shogakukan will have the same standards for what counts as a headword. Apparently the Svenska Akademien has only completed A-T, so there's obvious incommensurability among the dictionaries. Furthermore, any such list necessarily privileges the selected dictionaries' definitions of "word" above other, equally valid possible definitions and possible counts. The selection category is words "included in the dictionary considered the most authoritative or complete", but considered by whom? the Wikipedian who added that line to the chart? I don't see how this can be anything other than original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: This is a very problematic way of comparing languages, and constitutes , incompetently done. Example: The entry for Dutch, based on the 14th edition of the Van Dale lists the number of Words as 90,000. Had one of the contributors instead used the Woordenboek der Nederlandsche Taal the ''Approximate number of words'' would have increased fivefold, to 450,000. The aim of the article per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_languages_by_number_of_words&type=revision&diff=734928550&oldid=734921007 appears to be to establish the POV that some languages are "richer"  than others. To use the word count in a dictionary for that is ahem, unscientific
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)