Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teutophone


 * 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 - CrazyRussian talk/email 00:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Teutophone
del dicdef for a nonnotable neologism. Barely a blip in google. Mukadderat 23:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC) &Delete as dicdef, and note that there is nothing stopping anyone from creating Germanophone - it is not within the scope of this AfD to support or deny that decision. Themindset 22:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TheRingess 23:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikitionary Teutophone is an acceptable word, just like francophone and anglophone for french and english; however, this does belong in Wikitionary.
 * Keep. I'm a bit confused here. Seems like this should be renamed to Germanophone and then expanded to something comparable to Anglophone or Francophone or even Tagalophone. We have a lot of articles of this type. Why discriminate against German? --JJay 02:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will get rid of Tagalophone: merge/redirect it to Tagalog. While "teutophone" case is a mistake of mukadderat to check against "germanophone", the idea is that only those "-phone" articles make sense in which something can be said beyond dicdef. I had hard time to defend them, see, eg., Talk:-phone and in some other places. If you look into these articles, they describe certain nontrivial cultural connotations beyond dicdef "speaker of language". "teutophone" fails notability. `'mikkanarxi 04:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure if I am following your logic here. There are hundreds of hits on google scholar for Germanophone, not to mention news and other sources. Why can't the article be expanded to include the cultural connotations you are talking about? --JJay 13:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not discussing Germanophone article here. If someone can write something referenced and beyond dicdef into the "Germanophone" (which is a very meaningful redirect now), they are very welcome. `'mikkanarxi 04:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We are discussing germanophone since the meaning is apparently identical per my initial vote. Also, if you find the redirect "meaningful", why not argue for a redirect of teutophone? --JJay 21:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef. `'mikkanarxi 04:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dicdef. Pavel Vozenilek 16:08, 21 October 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.