Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacrebleu


 * 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 keep. SpinningSpark 19:53, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Sacrebleu

 * – ( View AfD View log )

WP:NOT#DICT 8ya (talk • contribs) 13:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Also for what it's worth none of these mentions have much more than a dictionary entry given. 8ya (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * agreed, Delete, this article is clearly a (valid) dictionary entry, not an encyclopaedia article. Elemimele (talk) 14:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, though I prefer to write as two words with an accent: Sacré bleu.  Athel cb (talk) 16:34, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * May I ask why? 8ya (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - common parlance and foreign language exclamations that have become English idioms (of a sort) are often the subject of coverage in reliable sources, as is the case here and here, and ancillary explanatory mentions like this, this, and this. That the article is in need of work to make it less a dictionary definition and more an encyclopedic article is a fixable problem.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 05:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The 2nd link isn't really notable coverage though. The google books links don't work here (unless you wanted to just link the books without any passage), but from what you said they don't seem to be significant coverage. 8ya (talk • contribs) 16:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Why so? It's a whole paragraph specifically about the term, in an article that uses the term in the title. The books aren't significant coverage, but taken together they are coverage in multiple, reliable sources and probably get to the level of significant combined. We wouldn't rely on those alone for significant coverage, but in this case we don't have to.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it being in the title makes it more notable, and in the article it self all the coverage it gets is saying that it's not used anymore and a sentence about its etymology. I found out that google books has a search function, and those are definitely not significant coverage. The first one is just using the term, the second one is just saying what it means for the patent name, the third one is a 8 word sentence stating the dieu -> bleu. 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I called them "ancillary explanatory mentions" and then said, "The books aren't significant coverage". We agree there, I think. But as I said, the other significant coverage is enough for me anyway.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess we just disagree and the significance then ^^

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep; there are reliable sources given in the article for the existence and use of this phrase. It's hard to figure out what the deletion rationale is supposed to be here. jp×g 02:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Which of these fulfills WP:WORDISSUBJECT though 8ya (talk • contribs) 10:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NOTDICT is not a reason to delete. As an archetypal bit of cod French or franglais, the subject is notable.  See The Local, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
 * That one (and all the others I could find/saw) falls under WP:WORDISSUBJECT though, no? 8ya (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge e.g. to minced oath. The sources on the specific expression sacrebleu are extremely thin, a majority of the article is about other words of the same nature. Geschichte (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, article gets 393 pageviews a day on average. Current weakness of the article is unfortunate, but the topic is the subject of secondary analysis, not just etymology, but usage. Abductive  (reasoning) 06:46, 29 August 2021 (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.