Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verstehen

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 12:42, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Verstehen
This is not a good definition.

Dictdef. Incorrect pronunciation, as well. RickK 00:15, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) So is this about verboten or verstehen? Why do you compare the two words, which have nothing whatsoever in common?
 * No vote. The article needs some assistance, clearly, but, if we remove this, would we have to remove articles like verboten too? BenSamples 05:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Scratch that. Delete, and I'm marking verboten for VfD as well. BenSamples 05:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, but leave verboten alone&mdash;it's been long-adopted into collequial English. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 14:19, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * But how is verboten more than a dictdef? (I put it up for VFD already so you might want to see the discussion there.) BenSamples 07:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider your wish to have Verstehen deleted. It is used in the article on Max Weber, but it has also been on Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences as well as Requested articles/Social Sciences and Philosophy. The word also crops up in two lists, List of sociology topics and List of criminology topics.

In other words, first someone thinks we need an article on that term, then someone else decides to have a go at it and writes a stub. Finally, you come along and want to have it deleted again. But the word is still on the Requested Articles list. And what exactly is it that is not legitimate about a stub? Keep.  00:49, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and expand significantly!!! Verstehen is a fundamental component of a significant branch of sociology.  See, e.g.,  --BD2412 00:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK, I added a little to it - definitely enough to take it out of the realm of mere definitions, but it does need more. --BD2412 02:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, proper article. Grue 12:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep but I think it would be more like "fair stay-un". Kappa 22:36, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, and expand. Megan1967 07:06, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.