Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pohl


 * 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 no result - as is pointed out, this is part of a wider issue which cannot be solved by one AfD, and the lack of discussion here about the specific article reflects that. Someone can try and remove all the German terms if they want (they should), but be prepared to engage in a pointless edit war with Sheynhertz. The prevailing opinion on his RfC is that "...a serious underlying problem here is a cultural clash... therefore, my recommendation is that people give him a heaping serving of Assume good faith and back off and think of creative ways to help him overcome his fears". I'll refrain from adding my interpretation of what that actually means, due to it not being particularly relevant to the closing of this discussion. --Sam Blanning(talk) 15:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Pohl
This article has been copy-pasted from the German Wikipedia, plus it's not even clear if the content is notable, not to mention that many different topics have been squished into one article. Mo-Al 16:37, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If you check the author's history, he's got hundreds thousands of these things, with the etymology (or what he calls "onomastics" which I don't think is actually a word) of every Germanic name there is. Check out his Move logs, where he's moved DAB pages (to distinguish between people of a name) to "Onomastics" pages, with the origin of the name. Fan-1967 16:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There's been lots of discussion on this. Look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-16 User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg. Mo-Al 16:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like this is a problem with a genuniely mentally-unstable user. I suggest that we Close this AfD and wait until he's been suitably dealt with. Tevildo 17:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the mediation case was closed, and I don't really see what could be done anyway. It's not his encyclopedia, after all. Mo-Al 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Onomastics is definitely a word, and has an article on the English Wikipedia. I don't see any problem with this kind of article. They could be useful sometimes. But they would need to be in English, and the information would need to be accurate. It might be rather hard to verify. Rbraunwa 23:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not clear if onomastics articles belong in Wikipedia. There are plenty of things which Wikipedia is not. This, however, hasn't been covered. Mo-Al 00:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is clear. This has long been settled.  See Deletion policy/names and surnames.  Most of this article is dictionary article content.  It should be in Pohl.  Uncle G 23:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Look's like the guy who made this article has now put the translation tag up. I'd say that we should wait for him to finish, but he just added it after a month of inactivity on this article. I doubt this would ever actually get translated. Mo-Al 00:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's simply useful, sort of an extended disambiguation page, covering not only homophones, but also other similar spellings. Translate to English, civilize and keep. And yes, onomastics is a proper word here.  // Halibutt 07:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Homophones and related words are the province of a dictionary article about a proper noun. See Benedict and Darlington for examples.  Disambiguation articles are not dictionary articles because Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  This article is in need of extensive cleanup, in particular the removal of all of the dictionary article content, leaving an normal name disambiguation article (c.f. Benedict and Darlington (disambiguation)). Uncle G 23:53, 10 July 2006 (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.