Má (Chinese word): Wikipedia is not a dictionary , and any notable claims in this article should go on an article like history of cannabis .  Remsense 留 01:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language , Medicine ,  and China .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete , the relevance to the etymology of the English word Marijuana is already dealt with in that article, and that's the only bit that's appropriate to an English encyclopaedia.  Elemimele ( talk ) 14:16, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The word ma is more than just the root of the word marijuana.  Ma is also the root of the word hemp, and the word ganja, and even the word cannabis.  In German, ma is the root of the word hanf, etc.  - The Hammer of Thor ( talk ) 17:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge verifiable information, if any, to History of cannabis , or else Redirect.  Owen× ☎ 14:34, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm there are 196 mainspace links to the article Má , which redirects to the article under discussion, so any consensus to delete or soft redirect to zh:wikt:麻 would involve a lot of cleanup (which I'm aware is not an argument against those outcomes).  I note that this article makes no mention that 麻 is sometimes considered one of the Five Grains .  Leaning Merge into Cannabis in China at the moment, but more looking into is indicated.  As per usual, I hope to circle back.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 19:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Almost all of those 196 mainspace links come from a single template - Template:Cannabis .  So a cleanup, if needed, would be trivial.  Owen× ☎ 19:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Excellent I was hoping that might be the case and forgot to look into it.  Folly Mox ( talk ) 02:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The article Ma is about the word's spread into other countries, around the globe, and so it has very little to do with Cannabis in China.  - The Hammer of Thor ( talk ) 16:21, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The history and etymology of ma is important in English language Wikipedia.  Ma is an accepted English word, and it's incorporated into nearly every world language.  The article is misnamed "Má (Chinese word)" and it should be moved to Ma (cannabis) .  - The Hammer of Thor ( talk ) 16:15, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] In what way is this not a dictionary entry?  If the content of a passage is the history and etymology of a word in itself, that is what a dictionary does, not Wikipedia.  麻 is the Chinese word for 'cannabis'.  It has slightly different bounds and connotations than the English word, because that's the nature of them being different languages.  Especially with China, I have comparatively little patience in the mystification people insist on blanketing ordinary vocabulary terms with—while some of them are genuinely bespoke concepts and may require encyclopedia articles, the ordinary word for a type of plant does not even come close to those.  An article like Cannabis in China is titled as it is specifically so that we are not misled to believe it's a totally divergent phenomenon that requires a totally different English term.  Why should 麻 have its own article, and not the Chinese word for 'water'?  水 certainly has its own interesting history for an English-language audience.  But we don't have that, because it is mostly just the word for 'water', and interesting linguistic history can be covered in a responsible way.  Remsense 留 16:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Word etymologies generally belong in a dictionary, as you say.  However, once a particular etymology gains sufficient amount of significant independent coverage to attain standalone notability, it qualifies for an encyclopedic entry.  Whether this word has cleared that threshold or not is what we're trying to determine here.  Owen× ☎ 16:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OwenX , what is an example of a foreign language term where the etymology alone qualifies it for its own encyclopedia article?  That is, where the concept the term describes is not what is actually notable.  I can show you dozens of citations regarding the French word blanc , regarding how its etymology is counterintuitively the same as that of the English word 'black', and the various different ways the word appears in culture, French and otherwise.  This is interesting, but it's not covered in a Wikipedia article titled Blanc (French word) or Blanc (white).  Instead, it's covered in a responsible way that doesn't beckon a new concept mostly out of thin air.  Remsense 留 16:52, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] We have quite a few articles about words and their etymology, both English and foreign, including Simran , Allah , and of course, Fuck .  To be clear, like you, I don't think Má should have its own page here.  I'm merely pointing out that your claim about foreign word etymologies not belonging on WP isn't based on policy or on practice.  Owen× ☎ 17:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I will accept the latter two examples, as well as Thou as viable counterexamples.  But as far as I can tell, the former is largely about the concept described instead of the word itself, à la Tao .  Thank you for these.  Remsense 留 17:11, 17 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting, I don't see a consensus here yet.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok, let's do a bit of a deeper dive then.  First off, as

Discussion outcome: delete