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. No prejudice towards a page move. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ersatz[edit]

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

Procedural relisting of previous unlisted nomination; no opinion on it myself. Original rationale from Mtmoore321 was:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc - an adjective belongs in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia! Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The concept of wartime substitution is notable — see Ersatz in the Confederacy, for example. And notice that, in that title, the word is used as a noun. Words are flexible like that and so such ideas about grammar are not a reason to delete. Warden (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Not the greatest nomination - David Gerard (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Edit: or merge per Diego Moya - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As currently written, the article does look like a dictionary definition, which is probably what attracted the notice of Mtmoore321. But, the section "Historical context" as well as the source suggested by Colonel Warden, above, show that there is a concept here to be written about. Keep the article, but clean it up. Cnilep (talk) 02:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Cnilep (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with substitute good per WP:NOPAGE. It's essentially the same concept, and describing the English and German words for it would provide better context in the target article. Diego (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that's a pretty good option too - David Gerard (talk) 11:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not just a definition. It shows examples of this concept being used at various times in history. Quite encyclopedic. Dream Focus 10:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's looking like a Keep. Can it at least be moved to ersatz good as then it would be consistent with substitute good and it would be a noun rather than an adjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtmoore321 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds good, with a redirect - David Gerard (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2013 (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.