Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barossa German

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. Sr 13 03:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barossa German[edit]

This article should be deleted because it is a neologism. There are sources cited but none of them mention the term "Barossa German". Username nought 12:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- cj | talk 15:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term has been around for some time and just because a source can't be found doesn't make it a neologism. While a quick google search didn't bring up a reliable source, I suspect a trip to the library would be fruitful. -- Mattinbgn/^talk 20:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not a neologism as per the source[1], which states that Colin Thiele referred often to "Barossa Deutsch", ie, Barossa German. As this is the English-language wiki, it is appropriate to name in English.--Yeti Hunter 22:23, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Yeti Hunter - more information on Australian regional dialects needs to be included in WP as well. JRG 01:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Barossa German[2] is a well known regional dialect of German related to Silesian. Ozdaren 01:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If you think an article name is a neologism, suggest moving it, on the talk page — not deleting it. Anyway, it had an appropriate reference for the name when the AfD was put up and it is even better referenced now. Also, the page cited by Ozdaren above mentions: "Peter Paul ... in July 1965 presented his M.A. thesis (a descriptive study of Barossa German)." Grant | Talk 01:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 03:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is an identified dialect. I don't think having the english name of a foreign dialect is a problem, if it is move it to Barossa Deutsch. This is an english language site: if one redirects to the other, the redirect should be from the foreign phrase to the english one.Ga rr ie 04:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Certainly doesn't read like a hoax, and as Ozdaren notes, it can be verified under a slightly different name. Fully agree that in the English language Wikipedia, articles ought to appear under English language names unless that causes ambiguity. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - anyone who has travelled to the Barossa Valley, or lived there for that matter, could verify this. Certainly a trip to a local library or heritage site in the Barossa could confirm the notability of this - will do next time I'm home! ABVS1936 05:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete per all of above reasoning, plus my own understanding of it as a somewhat colloquial dialect of German spoken within a clear and distinct community. Might need to move to Barossa Deutsch in order to satisfy relevant WP:RS concerns, as "Barossa German" isn't the most obvious search term to use. Orderinchaos 17:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable and unusual dialect of German. Support creation of a redirect from Barossa Deutsch to improve searchability. Lankiveil 05:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per the comments above, notable German dialect worthy of encyclopedic note. RFerreira 06:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This page has been here for 5 days, as per the Guidelines. The majority of users who have contributed to the debate have indicated it should be kept. It is now time to close this AfD page and make a decision. Could an Admin please do this so the AfD template can be removed from the article page? Thankls Ozdaren 15:23, 12 June 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.