Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embarazada
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was keep. Grue 18:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Embarazada[edit]
WP is not a manual of how to speak good Spanish. Flapdragon 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Embarazado (pregnant -- and yes it should be quoted in the masculine out of context) is not even a word of English, and though the content may be useful it's certainly not an encyclopaedia article. Maybe Wikibooks could find a home for it? Flapdragon 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It just has to be streamlined. Much of the article isn't notable, but the fact that it's so commonly misused as to be part of an international marketing campaign makes it worthy of an article. Much of the article can be removed, and the important parts expanded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baiter (talk • contribs) , at 19:38, 6 April 2006
- Strong keep. Responding to Flapdragon: An encyclopedia is a work that deals with all fields of knowledge (it comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning general or well-rounded education.) This article is not a user's guide, it simply describes the word. This includes how it is usually used by people. The fact it isn't in English is irrelevant, as that sounds like an argument to delete other entries like "Russian language," as well. That article describes how Russian is spoken. Does that mean it is a how-to?--Primetime 21:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that "Russian" and "language" are words of English. So in a Spanish encyclopaedia, would you expect to find English words commonly misused by Spanish people learning to speak English? No, an encyclopaedia is definitely not an indiscriminate collection of "all forms of knowledge" (and the Greek etymology is neither here nor there). For example, it's not a place for bus timetables, details of how to work my washing machine or your sister's school timetable. It's also not a manual of how to do things such as change a car tyre or speak a language. Articles on the grammar of a language are not aiming to teach you to speak the language, and more than a diagram of the brain is there to help you do brain surgery. Can I suggest read you read the page on What Wikipedia is not? I'm not saying what you've written is no use to anyone, far from it, but this is definitely not the place for it. Flapdragon 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were reading the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana--a Spanish encyclopedia with embedded French, Italian, English, German, Portuguese, Catalan, and Esperanto dictionaries--I would expect to see it. Also, Wikipedia is larger than the Espasa (as it is sometimes called). I have read "WP:NOT" several times, over time, and I think you are misinterpreting it. For example, there is the Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia passage, which states: "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability . . . since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments". Finally, I hope you are not inferring that the entry is a collection of indiscriminate, non-notable information, as this word is used by millions of people every day. I think it illustrates how complex the history and usage of a word can be, and how much meaning can change over time. It also illustrates the need for native speakers when preparing advertising campaigns.--Primetime 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the above -- the fact that WP has lots of space, the fact that a word "is used by millions of people every day", nor incidentally the fact you've worked hard on it -- makes this an encyclopaedia article. So in your ideal world you would just go through adding every word of every known language detailing its nature, etymology and possible misuse by non-natives? That would be, well, kind of, a dictionary, wouldn't it? Just like the ones you mentioned above. I'm not trying to be snide but I really think you need to sit back and think a bit about what an encyclopaedia is. Flapdragon 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If I were reading the Enciclopedia universal ilustrada europeo-americana--a Spanish encyclopedia with embedded French, Italian, English, German, Portuguese, Catalan, and Esperanto dictionaries--I would expect to see it. Also, Wikipedia is larger than the Espasa (as it is sometimes called). I have read "WP:NOT" several times, over time, and I think you are misinterpreting it. For example, there is the Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia passage, which states: "This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability . . . since Wikipedia requires no paper we can give more thorough treatments". Finally, I hope you are not inferring that the entry is a collection of indiscriminate, non-notable information, as this word is used by millions of people every day. I think it illustrates how complex the history and usage of a word can be, and how much meaning can change over time. It also illustrates the need for native speakers when preparing advertising campaigns.--Primetime 23:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, under what circumstances do you picture anyone ever looking up the (Spanish) word embarazada in an English-language encyclopaedia? Flapdragon 23:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't been here long. But this article does not fall under the description "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes" that do not belong in an encyclopedia...it's not a lesson on speaking Spanish, it's an exploration of a linguistic phenomenon. You'll find other such phenomena with their own articles, such as nucular. Whether or not someone would look up the word is irrelevant; no one can really judge what information someone will have a need for in the future. Who's gonna look up Atif Rauf? Keppa 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, maybe someone who's just heard the name Atif Rauf and wants to know who he is? Nucular is a word of English (well, more or less!). Embarazada is the Spanish for pregnant, and not even the citation form under which it would normally appear. Flapdragon 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if you have a problem with the form of "embarazada" then suggest the article be moved, not deleted. Yes, "nucular" IS a word, just like "embarazada." Both have their own articles because both are examples of linguistic phenomena. I really think that because "nucular" is more well known, being English, no one's disputing its article, while this article remains under fire. Keppa 00:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Er, maybe someone who's just heard the name Atif Rauf and wants to know who he is? Nucular is a word of English (well, more or less!). Embarazada is the Spanish for pregnant, and not even the citation form under which it would normally appear. Flapdragon 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct me if I'm wrong, because I haven't been here long. But this article does not fall under the description "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes" that do not belong in an encyclopedia...it's not a lesson on speaking Spanish, it's an exploration of a linguistic phenomenon. You'll find other such phenomena with their own articles, such as nucular. Whether or not someone would look up the word is irrelevant; no one can really judge what information someone will have a need for in the future. Who's gonna look up Atif Rauf? Keppa 23:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This seems like a great example of a linguistic "false friend." If a major corporation made the mistake, I'm sure plenty of others with little Spanish training do also. I think the etymological comparison and the exploration of various aspects of the confusion are things that very much belong in an encyclopedia article, and considering the obvious amount of work that went into this, why get rid of it? Keppa 23:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, we're not judging the quality of the material or the points it makes but its suitability for Wikipedia, which is not a compendium of false friends. Flapdragon 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The article should stay but could do with slimming down a bit. Boddah 23:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Sourced, NPOV and notable. Why get rid of it? Me lkjhgfdsa 23:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Great to see the Inclusionist community out in such force, but please guys, read WP:NOT. Also see http://en.wikibooks.org. Flapdragon 23:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read it and I don't understand what your issue is...could you perhaps cite a particular part? Keppa 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? As I've already mentioned more than once, WP is not there to teach you how to do things, for eaxmple to help you avoid pitfalls in learning a foreign language -- it's not an instruction manual, nor is it a usage guide, dictionary or manual of idiom: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used" if you want a verbatim quote. I'm sorry but I really think I've explained this about as clearly as it's possible to. Flapdragon 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. Parts of the article do fit the passage you just quoted. But it is, for the most part, an acceptable encyclopedia article in my eyes. I think certain offending sections should be removed or altered to a more appropriate form, but I don't think deleting the article is the answer. Check Wikipedia:Delete; deletion is clearly the last choice, when all other forums have failed. That's what this discussion is for, and so far the people who have responded are overwhelmingly in support of the article. So try to fix it before you throw it away. I don't want all this work and an interesting article to be lost here. Keppa 04:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already said (and I think this demonstrates that some basic concepts have not been fully understood here) that while some of the content may be useful somewhere, it's inherently inappropriate here -- which is the case with dozens of sort of useful or entertaining information. It's not possible to "fix" it, since there is no scope for an article on the "subject" of embarazada, which is a word of Spanish not a subject like Russian grammar. That's why it should be deleted. What's so wrong with simply giving it whgere it belongs? Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you. Parts of the article do fit the passage you just quoted. But it is, for the most part, an acceptable encyclopedia article in my eyes. I think certain offending sections should be removed or altered to a more appropriate form, but I don't think deleting the article is the answer. Check Wikipedia:Delete; deletion is clearly the last choice, when all other forums have failed. That's what this discussion is for, and so far the people who have responded are overwhelmingly in support of the article. So try to fix it before you throw it away. I don't want all this work and an interesting article to be lost here. Keppa 04:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? As I've already mentioned more than once, WP is not there to teach you how to do things, for eaxmple to help you avoid pitfalls in learning a foreign language -- it's not an instruction manual, nor is it a usage guide, dictionary or manual of idiom: "Wikipedia is not in the business of saying how words, idioms, etc., should be used" if you want a verbatim quote. I'm sorry but I really think I've explained this about as clearly as it's possible to. Flapdragon 01:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've read it and I don't understand what your issue is...could you perhaps cite a particular part? Keppa 00:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not every word deserves an article. It could be mentioned in false friends as an example of one Imarek 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Boddah YellowPigNowNow 23:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteStrong Delete Having been made to list all my arguments, I realise I feel quite strongly about it. Perhaps a mention in False friend. Perhaps one in Parker Pen Company. But its own article? I don't think so. ConDemTalk 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI don't know if this is relevant, but I notice that Keppa and Boddah were responding to Primetime's identical messages on their (and about 10 other) talk pages, asking them to vote simply because they were listed on the inclusionist wikipedians category. ConDemTalk 04:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's true. Nothing wrong with that, though. Thanks to Primetime for pointing it out to me because of our shared interest. It's not like we have an agenda. This is still my opinion. I reviewed the article and made my own decision. Notice he didn't say how to vote, he just asked us to vote. Keppa 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's exactly "like you have an agenda". And yes Primetime did ask people to vote to support him. He contacted you without (AFAIK) any reason to believe you would have specific thoughts on this article, but because he saw your names on a list of people who inherently disapprove of deleting stuff. Furthermore he didn't just bring it to their attention, but specifically asked people (most of them very new to WP) to support him "as a favor" (or even "a huge favor"): "I would be greatly in your debt" -- no doubt a favour that could be returned when asked for. Even so only a few of the people contacted have shown any interest, so maybe that shows that even among hand-picked inclusionists itr's hard to find a much interest in keeping this one? Of course Primetime didn't mention that this was the reason for the sudden appearance of a troop of inclusionist cavalry over the hill. While I'm not aware of anything that specifically forbids this behaviour, this is certainly not the basis on which such decisions should be made or influenced. I wonder how it squares with good faith? Perhaps I should alert a gang of deletionists and then we can have a great big generalised debate about the merits of deleting versus retaining things?Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not quote snippets of my message out of context. I asked some people not to support me but simply to vote. Your first quote is not even what I wrote, so I think that it should be crossed out. In any case, tallying the votes of those who weren't invited shows that consensus is clearly for keeping the entry. Further, your assertion that Keppa has an agenda is unsupported by evidence. He has given a much more clearer rationale for keeping the entry than your "because my unique interpretation of a phrase in a policy told me to". (I doubt the writers of that policy even forsaw an article such as this, i.e., an essay on a word--not a definition. That WP:NOT passage seems to me to be designed for banning descriptions of slang and dictionary definitions.)--Primetime 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of context? How does the context change things, please? And if we're getting snippy, please withdraw your allegation of misquotation. The three phrases I quoted come directly from your appeal for support. Clearly the people you contacted wouldn't be doing you a "huge favor" by voting to delete your article. You appealed to their sympathy, but the question of how much work you'd done to it is of course not a valid argument for keeping an article. Again I ask, why would it hurt you to move your lovingly-honed text to an appropriate place? Flapdragon 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument is largely over. But I want to re-emphasize just what an encylcopedia is by asking you to read these definitions from reliable dictionaries: Funk and Wagnall's (Encarta), Oxford Concise, Merriam-Webster's Collegiate, Random House Unabridged, Cambridge, and The American Heritage Dictionary. They all emphasize how encyclopedias cover all fields of knowledge (or rarely, everything about one subject [e.g., literature]). You are advocating moving a two-page article from an encyclopedia onto a site for books. Think about how ridiculous that seems. It doesn't help that moving it there would make the entry nearly impossible to find (as no one would look for it there and few visit the site).--Primetime 18:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Out of context? How does the context change things, please? And if we're getting snippy, please withdraw your allegation of misquotation. The three phrases I quoted come directly from your appeal for support. Clearly the people you contacted wouldn't be doing you a "huge favor" by voting to delete your article. You appealed to their sympathy, but the question of how much work you'd done to it is of course not a valid argument for keeping an article. Again I ask, why would it hurt you to move your lovingly-honed text to an appropriate place? Flapdragon 12:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not quote snippets of my message out of context. I asked some people not to support me but simply to vote. Your first quote is not even what I wrote, so I think that it should be crossed out. In any case, tallying the votes of those who weren't invited shows that consensus is clearly for keeping the entry. Further, your assertion that Keppa has an agenda is unsupported by evidence. He has given a much more clearer rationale for keeping the entry than your "because my unique interpretation of a phrase in a policy told me to". (I doubt the writers of that policy even forsaw an article such as this, i.e., an essay on a word--not a definition. That WP:NOT passage seems to me to be designed for banning descriptions of slang and dictionary definitions.)--Primetime 15:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's exactly "like you have an agenda". And yes Primetime did ask people to vote to support him. He contacted you without (AFAIK) any reason to believe you would have specific thoughts on this article, but because he saw your names on a list of people who inherently disapprove of deleting stuff. Furthermore he didn't just bring it to their attention, but specifically asked people (most of them very new to WP) to support him "as a favor" (or even "a huge favor"): "I would be greatly in your debt" -- no doubt a favour that could be returned when asked for. Even so only a few of the people contacted have shown any interest, so maybe that shows that even among hand-picked inclusionists itr's hard to find a much interest in keeping this one? Of course Primetime didn't mention that this was the reason for the sudden appearance of a troop of inclusionist cavalry over the hill. While I'm not aware of anything that specifically forbids this behaviour, this is certainly not the basis on which such decisions should be made or influenced. I wonder how it squares with good faith? Perhaps I should alert a gang of deletionists and then we can have a great big generalised debate about the merits of deleting versus retaining things?Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's true. Nothing wrong with that, though. Thanks to Primetime for pointing it out to me because of our shared interest. It's not like we have an agenda. This is still my opinion. I reviewed the article and made my own decision. Notice he didn't say how to vote, he just asked us to vote. Keppa 04:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He may not have said "Vote to keep my page!" but he certainly implied that he'd like you to vote to keep it. Anyway, this is not a poll, it is a way of finding consensus, so no one is actually "voting" here. And I wasn't passing judgement, I just thought it might defeat the point of this if people go round asking people to give their opinion simply because they are inclusionist. I just wanted this to be taken into account when administrators try to see where the consensus lies. ConDemTalk 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's clear that Keppa sincerely believes that the page should not be deleted. Your implication that he did so simply because I would like it if he did is proven false by his well-reasoned justifications given above. In fact, he has given the clearest justification of all the voters for his opinion. For example, you have not stated what you think deleting the page would accomplish. You have not stated why visitors to Wikipedia do not deserve to get an explanation when they type in embarazada in the search box. If one were to distill Flapdragon's reasoning for nominating the page it would look something like this: "Because a phrase in a paragraph designed to bar short definitions and slangwords from Wikipedia told me to do it." (I doubt the writers of that policy even forsaw an article such as this, i.e., an essay on a word--not a definition.) In any case, those who browse through the articles nominated for deletion do not represent the general Wikipedia usership, so I'm unsure what your definition of "consensus" is.--Primetime 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I wasn't passing judgement - I'm new, and I noticed it, and thought it might be relevant to the discussion. My reasons for wanting the article deleted are that I don't think the word is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, and that Wikipedia ought to have articles on things, rather than words. I agree that the fact that the word Embarazada can be funnily confused is interesting, but an etymology of the word doesn't belong on wikipedia. If you remove this section of the article, you are left with a short fact about a false friend and an example of its usage which is now also on the false friend page. I also think it's extremely unlikely that anyone would try and find an entry for the word Embarazada in an English encyclopedia. ConDemTalk 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And as I've said numerous times in numerous deletion votes, or whatever we're calling them now, telling people about a vote in progress isn't stacking the vote. I should hope that we're all independent enough to read the article and form our own opinions.
- Speaking of which, I just did that, and will abstain due to an insufficient understanding of the material. Rogue 9 13:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but urging a dozen or so strangers to vote in a particular direction as a favour doesn't seem exactly in the spirit of the thing. Flapdragon 13:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of articles that contain information about etymology. I gather from this fact that etymology is something that the wikipedia community finds acceptable in an encyclopedia article, or they'd all be up for deletion. I think the comparison of etymology is appropriate in this article. The only thing I would object to is the many examples of possible usage of the word; I think this is what most people refer to when they say the article should be "streamlined" and I agree. If it doesn't directly relate to the linguistic phenomenon being discussed it should be removed.
- But please don't complain about the army of inclusionists that has suddenly come to persecute you. Inclusionists do alert others of pages that may deserve attention. We're still free human beings. I reviewed the article and formed my own opinion. If there are people who share your viewpoint, they're obviously not aware of the issue, so find them and bring them here. It's really the only way we can even try to determine consensus. Keppa 19:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, I wasn't passing judgement - I'm new, and I noticed it, and thought it might be relevant to the discussion. My reasons for wanting the article deleted are that I don't think the word is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia page, and that Wikipedia ought to have articles on things, rather than words. I agree that the fact that the word Embarazada can be funnily confused is interesting, but an etymology of the word doesn't belong on wikipedia. If you remove this section of the article, you are left with a short fact about a false friend and an example of its usage which is now also on the false friend page. I also think it's extremely unlikely that anyone would try and find an entry for the word Embarazada in an English encyclopedia. ConDemTalk 05:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's clear that Keppa sincerely believes that the page should not be deleted. Your implication that he did so simply because I would like it if he did is proven false by his well-reasoned justifications given above. In fact, he has given the clearest justification of all the voters for his opinion. For example, you have not stated what you think deleting the page would accomplish. You have not stated why visitors to Wikipedia do not deserve to get an explanation when they type in embarazada in the search box. If one were to distill Flapdragon's reasoning for nominating the page it would look something like this: "Because a phrase in a paragraph designed to bar short definitions and slangwords from Wikipedia told me to do it." (I doubt the writers of that policy even forsaw an article such as this, i.e., an essay on a word--not a definition.) In any case, those who browse through the articles nominated for deletion do not represent the general Wikipedia usership, so I'm unsure what your definition of "consensus" is.--Primetime 05:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- He may not have said "Vote to keep my page!" but he certainly implied that he'd like you to vote to keep it. Anyway, this is not a poll, it is a way of finding consensus, so no one is actually "voting" here. And I wasn't passing judgement, I just thought it might defeat the point of this if people go round asking people to give their opinion simply because they are inclusionist. I just wanted this to be taken into account when administrators try to see where the consensus lies. ConDemTalk 04:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia debe estar avergonzado cuando nosotros quitamos palabras españolas famosas como está para nada. Que Lástima--God Ω War 07:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And there's three more words that should be added to WP on the grounds they can be misused by learners of Spanish: este (ésta), porque (por), que (qué). I'm not trying to score points, but where is this going to end? Presumably not till every word of every language has an entry in the English encyclopaedia. Surely we can all see that's ridiculous. Flapdragon 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sorry, Flapdragon, but this seems to be such an important issue, that may well be required to be in the public eye, precisely because I am sure a lot of people will want to refer to it in an encyclopaedia and it has nothing to do with textbooks, tutorials or readers as such. We are not trying to teach anybody anything as such but it has become important enough to become a concept, and as the "embarazada" concept it has taken on a life of its own and people, will appreciate to be warned not to "embarrass" themselves using the word in the wrong context. By all means, use an disambiguation article and put all this and similar problem usages into it, but somewhere people should be able to read up on it in Wikipedia. It was bad enough to keep the English "hopefully" controversy out of Wikipedia's pages, but at least you would not have embarrassed yourself using "hopefully". But this... Well, I think it needs to be in Wikipedia. Dieter Simon 23:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I've put the question twice now, but no-one has been able to explain how someone would find this entry (except perhaps by the far-fetched links from irrelevant articles that Primetime has been adding!). Hopefully is a different matter: it's a well-known linguistic controversy in English that someone might well look up to see what WP had to say on the subject. This is just one of untold numbers of mistakes English-speakers might make in translating into Spanish. Are they supposed to look up every word they produce in WP to see if it might be a mistake? And why the obssessive emphasis on this one single example of the well-known phenomenon of the false friend? Are we to expect in-depth articles on every foreign word an English-speaker might be misled by? The mind boggles. Flapdragon 12:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Super Ultra Uber Strong Keep The article is notable, culturally significant, and justified. KirbyMeister 19:23, 8 April 2006 (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.