Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oy vey (2nd nomination)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Seraphim System ^(talk) 14:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oy vey[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article consists of only etymological, usage, and similar information. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – “Oy vey” is not a dictionary term but rather an extremely popular phrase in Jewish/Yiddish/Germanic language translating into ““woe is me”. Which by the way, also has an article here on Wikipedia. Though it may not expand beyond its current “Stub” status. It is a phrase with Etymology connotations that expand beyond a simple dictionary term. Worst case scenario Redirect to Yiddish words used in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect is certainly fine, but Woe is me is just a disambiguation page, none of whose targets are about the phrase itself. Moreover, the popularity of the phrase is more or less irrelevant to the state of the article. It may be possible that an encyclopedic article could be written about this, but in the 12 years or so since the previous nomination, it hasn't expanded beyond information that leaves it as a mere WP:DICDEF. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information in this article greatly exceeds what would appear in a dictionary entry. Most of the discussion of possible etymologies, equivalent phrases in other languages, and cultural significance would not be appropriate in Wiktionary, and would simply be deleted. Measured in kilobytes, this article contains eight times as much information as the corresponding Wiktionary entry, even after the nominator deleted the entire "popular culture" section. P Aculeius (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NOTDIC: "Note that dictionary entries and encyclopedia articles do not differ simply on grounds of length. An entry in an comprehensive dictionary (or a topical encyclopedic dictionary) would probably contain illustrative quotations for each listed meaning; etymologies; translations; inflections; links to related and derived terms; links to synonyms, antonyms, and homophones; a pronunciation guide in various dialects, including links to sound files; and usage notes; it could be very long indeed." The size of the article (especially a raw byte count) is irrelevant. The current state of the Wiktionary entry is irrelevant. This is a discussion about oy vey as an encyclopedia entry. In what way does this article discuss any sort of cultural significance in the way that, for example, the entry at Ain't does? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article is more than what would be found in a dictionary. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How so? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bosnia and Herzegovina-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Oy vey, how about putting OK up for deletion? Not a dictdef - entry is beyond that.Icewhiz (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Clarify this was a keep !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 10:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because the article at Okay is not a dictionary entry, while this one is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:32, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Kpalion^(talk) 06:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- there are plenty of sources on line. ~~I really try to assume good faith, but this nomination is highly problematic in light of the zeitgesit.~~ Bearian (talk) 23:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sources for what exactly? Can you share some before we take your word for it? Because, even after double checking, I just can't find much. Keep in mind, if this becomes a redirect, it can always be marked as an {{R with possibilities}}. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:38, 15 July 2018 (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.