Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blatte
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Blatte
Exclusive Swedish slang term. Delete or transwiki to Wiktionary. Peter Isotalo 13:51, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems notable, could be expanded. We have articles such as Gringo or Kraut. Martg76 22:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
- But gringo and kraut are commonly understood English words these days. Googling gives no hits with this usage (in English, at least) in the first 50 or so listings. Delete. BrainyBroad 11:50, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
- As a native speaker of Swedish and being a fluent English speaker since the age of 10, I can confirm this. It is an exclusively Swedish term. / Peter Isotalo 15:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see why English terms should take precedence over others (if those are encyclopedic/notable). Even though written in English language, this is an encyclopedia with global appeal. Martg76 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's an English language encyclopedia. It might have global appeal, but it's still written in English and including slang notable only in languages other than English is going, far past any reasonble interpretation of our inclusion policies. It's one thing to include persons, ideas, events and places not notable or even completely unknown in English-speaking countries, but slang terms... That's just taking it too far. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide? / Peter Isotalo 22:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- That argument is inconsistent. If that is your opinion, why don't you put Kraut or Gringo for deltion, or Johann Gottfried Piefke, who is really only notable because of the slang term? Wikipedia isn't an English slang dictionary either, is it? Martg76 04:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's realistic, if anything. I'm seriously unamused by the though of keeping every imaginable slang in term notable only in every imaginable language besides English. I think it lowers the general credibility and standards of Wikipedia and encourages additions of other articles on idioms known only to non-English speakers which are difficult to verify and is very hard to put some decent limit on. A lot of slang in most languages is extremely notable and there's always information to add about which of social or ethnic groups that use it, etymology, differing pronunciation, etc. etc. It's very easy to claim that nearly any common slang term should be included. Kraut and gringo, just like nigger, are veritable institutions of the English language, and keeping such extremely notable English-language terms (even if I would prefer not to have them) feels like a very reasonable compromise to me; extending this reasoning to other languages does not. And Pfieke is a poor example in this context since he is a person who has done other things besides become famous for being associated with an idiom and... well... he's a person, not a slang term. / Peter Isotalo 10:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- That argument is inconsistent. If that is your opinion, why don't you put Kraut or Gringo for deltion, or Johann Gottfried Piefke, who is really only notable because of the slang term? Wikipedia isn't an English slang dictionary either, is it? Martg76 04:50, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's an English language encyclopedia. It might have global appeal, but it's still written in English and including slang notable only in languages other than English is going, far past any reasonble interpretation of our inclusion policies. It's one thing to include persons, ideas, events and places not notable or even completely unknown in English-speaking countries, but slang terms... That's just taking it too far. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a slang and idiom guide? / Peter Isotalo 22:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see why English terms should take precedence over others (if those are encyclopedic/notable). Even though written in English language, this is an encyclopedia with global appeal. Martg76 21:43, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- As a native speaker of Swedish and being a fluent English speaker since the age of 10, I can confirm this. It is an exclusively Swedish term. / Peter Isotalo 15:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete as per Peter Isotalo. / Alarm 08:45, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'm sorry for disagreeing... exclusively Swedish term? yes. -- but being non-notable is (i think) not a reason by itself for deletion... m:wikipedia is not paper, and all that... --Fred-Chess 12:06, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Having thought about this a bit, I have decided to vote weak keep, as this and "blatte" both are slang terms used frequently in modern Swedish society, and can probably be linked from articles on Swedish youth culture and immigration issues. "Blatte" already has a link from the article on the Swedish hip hop group The Latin Kings. I'm not adverse to revisiting the issue if the articles haven't shown signs of growth in six or twelve months. I have asked User:Tsaddik Dervish, who writes articles on Swedish hip hop, to look at the articles. Uppland 06:33, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- Article growth isn't the issue here. Even unencyclopedic articles can grow exponentially in notime. Just look at list of common phrases in various languages. People voted to keep it, but just try making it fit with Wikipedia is not slang and idiom guide and you get non sequitur arguments. / Peter Isotalo 15:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
- I still think small discussions, like this one, are useful. I'd say people have a right to have their opinions and votes, no matter their logical correctness... in fact , using the argument "I like waffles" would be just as valid as anything for voting... Otherwise, the List of similarities between Canada and New Zealand would surely have been deleted by now... --Fred-Chess 08:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- If neither logic nor reason are expected nor asked for in these discussions, we might as well not have the discussions at all and just have unmotivated, silent (hell, even secret) votes. Demanding respect (not acceptance) for making non sequitur argumentation is only going to further polarize the inclusionist/deletionist discourse and keep fueling bitter disputes among Wikipedians. At the very least admit that it's about a form of opinion-pushing, not a product of well-balanaced reasoning. Anyone who claims that your above example is a healthy sign of quality improvement should think it over. It strikes me as being closer to rules lawyering than reasonable argumentation. / Peter Isotalo 10:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- I still think small discussions, like this one, are useful. I'd say people have a right to have their opinions and votes, no matter their logical correctness... in fact , using the argument "I like waffles" would be just as valid as anything for voting... Otherwise, the List of similarities between Canada and New Zealand would surely have been deleted by now... --Fred-Chess 08:32, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
- Article growth isn't the issue here. Even unencyclopedic articles can grow exponentially in notime. Just look at list of common phrases in various languages. People voted to keep it, but just try making it fit with Wikipedia is not slang and idiom guide and you get non sequitur arguments. / Peter Isotalo 15:04, 19 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
