Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages (2nd nomination)
Yes, I noticed when making that summary that it is like a list of arguments to avoid. Presumably the closer will take that into account. But I don't we need to decide what people use Wikipedia for. To many translators it is a translation tool. They use it all the time, because it helps to understand the topic you're working on. Anyway, I think the relevant policy here is . This does indeed recommend migrating  glossaries to Wiktionary. And many have been migrated. Sometimes we have glossaries on both. For example, both have glossaries of baseball terms. The :wikt:Appendix:Glossary of baseball jargon (I)|Wiktionary entry on the infield fly rule might be more helpful to a language learner because it has links to the words in the entry. The Glossary of baseball (I)#Infield fly rule|Wikipedia entry might be more useful to a baseball fan, because it has a link to the infield fly article. As for this one, if I had to choose I would choose Wiktionary. But the one argument that did impress me was that it helped to settle naming disputes. These come up all the time, especially in articles about Europe. If having it here helps the encyclopedia, that might be a reason for keeping it. –&nbsp
— User:Margin1522, 17:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:LISTGLOSSARY (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists)