Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bildung

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous.
 * There is clear concensus that this is not an encyclopedia article.
 * While the general opinion seems to favor transwiki to Wiktionary, my understanding of their rules suggests that they only want words in use in English.
 * No evidence was presented that this word is actively used in English.
 * I can find no evidence of significant usage myself.
 * I do remember enough German to agree with Mikkalai that this is an incomplete definition regardless.

Since I believe this will be rejected by Wiktionary, I can not in good conscience transwiki it to them. That leaves me with Delete.

If anyone wants to contest this decision, it would probably be easiest to do so by recreating the content directly in Wiktionary. The content read "Bildung is a German word meaning education/upbringing." Rossami (talk) 01:15, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bildung
Great, yes, it may mean that. But this is a dictdef, if I ever saw one. Move to Wicktionary. Smoddy | Talk 22:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * and therefore should be and NOT "Votes for deletion". Jeff Knaggs 22:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed so. I've added the tag, the vfd one is still there though. Kappa 22:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Indeed no. Please don't lecture.  Things come here for deliberations about whether they should go to Wikipedia or not.  The problem with an automatic and preemptive transwiki tag is that Wikipedia does not have a VfD.  The people who work there don't necessarily enjoy inaccurate, sloppy, and hasty definitions shoved over there.  So, does Bildung of bildungsroman (which is what this seems to be) need to go over like this?  I say delete and let Wiktionary develop its own.  Well formed, precise definitions should be transwikied.  Let's care more about them than we appear to about Wikipedia.  Geogre 03:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * OK if I have to make a guess about what wiktionary wants, I'll go with "If you are creating a new page, be sure it is allowed under the criteria for inclusion ." It satisfies criterion #1, in widespread use (over 18 million hits). Also "It is appreciated if your new page conforms to the style of Wiktionary.", so including the MtW tag will enable people familiar with that style to find and format it. Vote remains move to wiktionary. Kappa
 * FWIW, I was referring to Jeff Knaggs's comment. Folks should, of course, vote "keep" or "transwiki," if that is their judgment, but I have never responded well to people who use VfD to attack the article nominators.  If the nominator is wrong, the vote will make it clear, and there's no reason to be personal about it.  Geogre 14:20, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * actually, the translation is only partly correct. Move to wiktionary Lectonar 10:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * delete no move to wictionary. incomplete useless translation. Mikkalai 23:35, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.