Deletion of List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America (2nd nomination)

Comment: This is a violation of  once removed. Though, this is really more than a stand-alone list in the traditional sense, so it should be judged under notability criteria for articles. If the topic is notable, the title should be changed and it should be a discussion about how Spanish from Spain and elsehwere has diverged, not a list. And even if made into or considered a true stand-alone list, it is not useful and does not satisfy any of the reasons for a a list per . As a true list, it would be a copyright violation (or nearly so) lifting a list somebody else compiled or |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDIC||WP:LISTPURP||WP:OR)

Comment: Arguments in favor of deletion are either arguments for renaming, fixing and/or expanding the article (which AFD is not for) or consist entirely of  (without having read or understood the policies in question - since an article can, if the topic is encyclopedic (like this one is), legitimately be about dictionary-related subjects) or  without further explanation. Regards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:VAGUEWAVE||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: Not an article but just some data put together by . WP should have an article on differences in Spanish between different countries.  But that needs to be based on published sources that discuss it, not put together from raw data
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Potentially giant lists of words should probably be handled by Wiktionary&mdash;they aren't encyclopedia articles in the sense that someone will sit and read them through, and per  they probably necessitate target articles for most of the included words, many or most of which would be . Despite the popularity (in AfD at least) of DICDEF articles, packing Wikipedia with such isn't really making an encyclopedia.Without considering the need for target articles, this is neither a proper  since by design it contains much analysis, nor a proper article since it is currently contains much  (almost as if the List format were a way to evade  requirements
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Lists (WP:LIST||WP:DICDEF||WP:LIST||WP:OR||WP:V)

Comment: In principle, perfectly discriminate, encyclopedic list of the lexical differences between fundamental variants of one of the most widespread Indoeuropean languages. In practice, it has several problems but none that can't be solved by editing, so |deletion policy requires us to keep. DGG, Killiondude, Bongomatic shown that there are sources and that the list is sourceable. People telling this is "pure trivia" say more about their respect for linguistics than about the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIRECTORY||WP:NOTDICTIONARY)