Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English words of Germanic origin not preserved in German


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

List of English words of Germanic origin not preserved in German

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article should be deleted because it is WP:LISTCRUFT definitions #4, #5, and #12. It also should be deleted because it fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY definition 6 which states "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Overcategorization for this issue in categories." This is because the article is a unnecessary cross category. The article also fails WP:GNG because there is no "significant coverage" of this subject. It finally fails WP:NOR because it is original research for which no sources exist. KAP03 (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:50, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence that this is notable enough for a stand-alone list Spiderone  19:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - I find this list very instructive and also flawless after having followed several internal links from the words in this list to Wiktionary. The data given there seem to constitute the source of the information given in the list. So in my eyes, there is no original research involved here, but existing knowledge is presented in a new, more concise and explicit form which seems to be a central element of any encyclopedic work. A relevant objection against this list might be the issue of "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization". However, this list fits very well into the scope of articles like English lexicology and lexicography, History of English (including the respective categories) and also into the scope of the category English Etymology. Yes, several improvements can and should be done with this list which might be more usefull when including Proto-Germanc roots of the terms it includes. However, this article is pretty new and thus should have the chance of improvement (and enlargement) rather than being deleted.GermanyCalling (talk) 12:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this is a new account whose only other edit was to add a link to the article to another page. - BilCat (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * you have used several arguments that we should avoid during deletion discussions; see WP:ITSUSEFUL, WP:NEWARTICLE and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone  19:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nom. This is really synthesis, and ought to cite reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 16:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - again, purely original research, as per others. &#60;&#60;&#60; SOME GADGET GEEK &#62;&#62;&#62; (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I found some entries that I'd quibble with - adze, for example, is not a Germanic word, was attested only in the 12th century, and in fact might be Proto-Celtic or Proto-Basque in origin. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.