Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Svenne (2nd nomination)


 * 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   redirect to Swedes. Feel free to merge any usable content from the history. Tim Song (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Svenne
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Pure dictionary definition. Please delete it because it's just about a term, and it's an orphan foreign term, it's unreferenced after over 5 years, and it has an equally good article at svenne.

Please vote DELETE. - Wolfkeeper  02:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —-  Wolfkeeper  03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would agree if it was a real word in a different language. But this word seems to deserve an article because of its slang usage and emerging usage.  I would draw an analogy to the article on Bootstrapping or something similar in English. Onefinalstep (talk) 03:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia isn't a slang guide, and it's completely unreferenced anyway. Unreferenced material can be removed at any time. Bootstrapping isn't a good article; it's not FA, it's actually start class, and it actually appears to be a badly written disamb page, it does not seem to be a good example of anything.- Wolfkeeper  04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, no valid reason for deletion has been given. It's not a dicdef. Saying it should be deleted because it's "just about a term" is like saying The Historian should be deleted because it's "just about a novel"; and saying it should be deleted because it's a foreign term flies in the face of WP:BIAS, as well as raising the question of what "foreign" can possibly mean in an international encyclopedia. That it's orphaned and unreferenced is a problem, but not one that needs to be solved by deletion. +Angr 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A valid reason seems to be given to me - it is just a dictionary definition of a slang term and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It doesn't matter if it is foreign or not, it is still a word, not an actual, notable, encyclopedic topic. Send it over to Wikitionary where it belongs. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge into Swedes, for whom it is an alternate title. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge or Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang.  Powers T 23:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Changed my vote. The policy has been changed so that articles on words are now allowed. I'm therefore forced to change to a keep.- Wolfkeeper  20:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You're treading close to violating WP:POINT. Please stop with the reverse psychology and overwrought sarcasm.  Powers T 13:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge changed my vote to maximise the chance of a decision from the review, given the lack of references.- Wolfkeeper  16:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to Swedes, or soft-redirect to svenne. -- Quiddity (talk) 20:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article "Swedes" isn't that great to begin with, but it will not be improved by having this unreferenced piece of crap inflicted on it. If someone had added this content to that article out of the blue, somebody would probably have reverted it as vandalism. --Hegvald (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions.  —Hegvald (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced. Fails WP:V. Pcap ping  08:49, 17 May 2010 (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.