Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Definition of Jewish Terms in the J-Blogosphere

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. --Core desat 19:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Jewish Terms in the J-Blogosphere

While indubitably useful, this article does not belong here, as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, with no sources, it's impermissible original research, as the article itself admits: "It is hoped that bloggers will update this page often to make it as complete as possible." Sandstein 20:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletions. IZAK 05:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to Wiktionary and then delete as stated Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Nuttah68 20:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Copy to Wiktionary only if the page name is changed and then~~ delete. Most of the terms listed on this page are standard Hebrew or Yiddish expressions in English transliteration. I didn't see any expressions, or at most few, which had anything to do with blogging. --Metropolitan90 22:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Mango below, no need to copy to Wiktionary. --Metropolitan90 20:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this needs further clarification and expansion. IZAK 05:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No conceivable clarification and expansion could make that topic not violate WP:WINAD. Sandstein 05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oy Vey, Delete. (per WP:WINAD) And don't bother transwikiing either, these terms are surely already there, and it would be too much work to check them all. Mango juice^talk 15:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Individual terms might be usable for Wiktionary but article as a whole would appear not to be. --Shirahadasha 17:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useful yes, but also violates WP:WINAD yes... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 19:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Usedup 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per metro90. Redundant list, certainly not an article. --Shuki 22:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I must concur with those who have posted before me. --Ozgod 23:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sandstein's comment, Metro90 and Shira. I've attempted to find better sourcing for some of the more neologistic terms such as "Hot Chanie" (which I will not disagree that it is a useful term) and some of the others. However, I have had no success doing so. Furthermore, most of the small number of neologisms have nothing to do with blogs per se anyways. JoshuaZ 05:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.