Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of German words and phrases


 * 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. IrishGuy talk 19:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

List of German words and phrases

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Has been Transwikied now; Wikipedia is not a dictionary; barely-referenced, and borders on Original Research (phrases "presumed to be commonly understood by the English reader"?) Miskwito 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as nom --Miskwito 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleteper nom Alf Photoman  18:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sigh. Not that it will make any difference. I fail to see why an article like Care-a-lot's Birthday is retained and this article goes. I know which I'd prefer to have in an encyclopædia. No doubt someone will tag this an 'I like it' response, point out that this isn't a vote, I've made no cogent argument for keeping the article according to current policy and just go ahead and delete anyway. "We are just following policy". WLDtalk 19:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Hey, you're certainly entitled to your opinions (don't forget WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, though). What I don't really understand is why, since this is now on Wiktionary, the page is needed, or even doing any good. I might feel better about it staying if it were better-referenced. But either way it's kind of doomed to have a lot of original research no matter what, because of the type of subject it's covering (would a general reader really be "expected" to know all those phrases? Expected by whom? Where's the evidence that a general audience really does understand most of those phrases, etc.). --Miskwito 19:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom since as because said per nom. This is a clear-cut case of applying a policy - this is not an issue of importance, but rather of scope. Grace notes T  § 19:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The phrase presumed to be commonly understood by the English reader should be replaced by something more accurate like German words used in the English language (and remove those that aren't, like 'Ausweis, bitte.'). I noticed that most of the entries in this list have a Wikipedia entry of their own and therefore many of them denote important concepts from history or science. The fact that words are borrowed from another language is a fact in linguistics (socalled Loanwords), and these types of lists are common in linguistic texts. German loanwords also seem to be in use among Wikipedia users, I have read two on discussion pages during the last few weeks: Rechtsstaat and Sprachbund - both of them aren't even on the list yet, so there is potential. --DorisH 22:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Its a navigation device to existing articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agreed with above Snowonster 01:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Violates WP:WINAD. And if the list only exists as a "navigation device", that makes it a List of loosely associated topics because the articles it links to have no actual connection, so even more reason to delete it. Saikokira 05:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like a list of dictionary terms and seems to me like it violates NPOV because it's a choice of words to be included. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just that. It probably shouldn't judged by Wikipedia policies and guidelines to begin with because, regardless of the content, it doesn't belong here. Grace notes T  § 15:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Only because of transwiki, and it needs clean up. Reywas92 Talk 21:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)  **Also note Category:Lists of phrases, which has some other languages of this kind of thing.  Reywas92 Talk 21:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WINAD. The title really should be List of German loanwords.  Could someone please correct that in Wiktionary?  As a navigational aid, it does not really help beyond the category.  Also, the classification of something as a "loanword" should be sourced, whereas this list isn't.  -- Black Falcon 23:48, 19 March 2007 (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.