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. Please defer merge related discussion to article talk. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judenfrei[edit]

Judenfrei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is a term definition. Even the term status is unclear, it's rather a trivial compound word. But anyway WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Also the article is unsourced and has rather suspicious information. Suva 10:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - indeed. Its a trivial German term. Delete supported. Belongs to a dictionary. Any noteworthy content should be put to corresponding history articles.--Alexia Death 11:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, probably to The Holocaust, as per Alexia Death. Digwuren 11:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have attached the appropriate merge tags, and requested for a discussion regarding the proper merge target section on Talk:The Holocaust. Digwuren 07:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the map and the "areas that were proclaimed judenrein"-section indicate sufficient notability, this article is eligible for expansion. SalaSkan 12:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not notability but term definition. This is a dictionary not encyclopedia article. This should be (and AFAIK is) included in one of the Holocaust related articles instead. Suva 12:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "areas" section fits better into the main article of Holocaust. Digwuren 12:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'd like to note that ALL users who so far voted to delete the article are contributors who are heavily or exclusively involved in editing Estonia-related articles. Some of them had been blocked from editing before for edit wars on articles about Estonian's participation in Nazi war crimes. Since Estonia is the only country mentioned in the article, I question their impartiality and propose to keep the article for the further discussion. 206.186.8.130 13:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you insist on it, let's start by pointing out that Special:Contributions/206.186.8.130 consists purely of trying to display Nazis as more powerful, influential and mainstream than they actually were or are. I would say you're a single-purpose Nazi glorification account, but will refrain from it due to the technicality of you not even having an account. Digwuren 13:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess you misunderstand or misuse term "glorification". "Glorification" would be calling thugs from SS zondercommando "freedomfighters". I'm more involved in "clarification", if you wish, of links between WWII-period Estonia and Nazi's activities. Anyway, let's leave this kindergarten-level tit-for-tat aside. My point was, vote of 3 Estonians isn't enough to delete an article which is not favourable to Estonia. It still is. You guys are patriots of Estonia which is nice and dandy with me, but that naturally weigh on your impartiality. Nothing personal here. I would say the same about any similar situation. Would you trust an opinion of 3 patriots of Israel on Deir Yassin? Would you trust an opinion of 3 Russian patriots on Katyn?206.186.8.130

Never again insult me by calling me a patriot. And you'd better not repeat accusations of ethnicity-based unability to follow WP:NPOV, either. Digwuren 19:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not really weird that Estonians tend to be interested in Estonian related articles. But this is not the question here. The point is, that this is not suitable article for wikipedia. The content in this article might be suitable, but not as a separate article. Suva 14:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Frankly speaking, I'd like to see more opinions about relevance of this article. So far only wikipedians who want to delete this article are ones from Estonia and Estonia is the only country mentioned in this article. I do see some pattern here and want more opinions about this article before decision is made. 206.186.8.130 18:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And thats exactly what the AfD process is for. --Alexia Death 19:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the related Holocaust article. Judenfrei is a term, but not any operation whatsoever, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--Kylohk 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a redirect to a generic article about Holocaust.--Alexia Death 19:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• So would I. Such a redirect seems a rather logical way to proceed, given the usual customs and practices of Wikipedia redirects. Digwuren 19:21, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an ordinary German word, without special encyclopedic meaning. There are also German words Jude, Arbeit, Lager, and many others, used by Nazi. But this is English language wikipedia. `'юзырь:mikka 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This ain't just an 'ordinary German word' - it's rather a Nazi-introduced concept of a territory which is cleansed of Jews. We are clearly not talking about linguistics here - the article is about the historical background of the phenomenon that this word denotes in English, which, per Wikipedia vs Wiktionary guide qualifies it for the Wikipedia. Jude, Arbeit, Lager mentioned above are certainly not from the same class as they don't mean anything in particular in English (well, except for the lager beer... :-), so the comparison is logically incorrect. Ilvar 22:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* I would really like to see how you can expand this article, there is not much more to write about it. I made a comparsion, why not a create a page titled "Pommiauk" -- Estonian military designation for the holes in the ground, caused by bombs and other explosive devices. The word is directly translated as "bomb-hole". It's true that military uses this word. I could even supply a map with "pommiauks" marked on it. It's still not a notable article material. Redirect to Holocaust article is definitely a reasonable solution, and everyone familiar with wikipedia, knows this is common practice. Suva 05:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions that immediately pops to mind about judenfrei is; How common was it to proclaim yourself judenfrei before Nazism, and who did so? How did this change in Nazi Germany, in conquered areas? What was the political consequences of proclaiming your establishment/area as such? How did the concept fit in to the nazi manifest, into nazi propaganda? As to your example; WP have several articles on crater. Taemyr 00:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Understandable questions, although a bit Nazi-centric. My understanding is that before the Nazis initiated systematic ethnic cleansing against Jews at Kristallnacht, the word was not used in 'proclamations' but in antisemitic descriptions of what the 'ideal world' would look like. Thus, Nazi usage would be the first time the word was actually a matter of proclamations.

As for political consequences -- this is an even more interesting topic and merits considering various sovereigns' explicit prohibition of Jewish people settling down. However, this does not belong to this article, and has been extensively covered in articles such as Antisemitism and Antisemitism in Europe (Middle Ages). Digwuren 07:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nerge and redirect - I agree with Suva. I can't imagine how this article could be expanded without getting into a discussion of "the final solution". Just merge this with the appropriate Holocaust article and then redirect it. --Richard 05:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Holocaust. It is true that this is not an "ordinary" word of German language; it was used by the Nazis as kind of a "technical term", as part of their propaganda language. But still, it's a term. The events associated with this word can just as well be described (and are described) in the Holocaust article. If anything is missing there, add it. --B. Wolterding 13:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I don't feel that this should be deleted, and I also don't feel that there is room for significant improvement on the article, however I believe the information is still notable enough to keep around, so merge into appropriate article. --sumnjim ^{talk with me·changes} 13:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki – Nominated per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, should be moved to Wiktionary. Please don't delete it without doing so. — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 15:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A German word in the English Wiktionary? That's a new one... anyway, merge if possible.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's angst, ersatz, gestalt, etc. -- Rob C (Alarob) 02:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- -- pb30<talk> 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Holocaust or appropriate sub article. Tewfik^Talk 22:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to "Holocaust" per those arguing for that. The term has a history behind it, but what we're really looking at in this article is a dictionary definition and a list of places (a surprisingly short list of places, for that) where it was applied. It's a phenomenon which would be better explained in the context of a larger article. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect what little there is in this article into Holocaust. It's a dicdef, not broad enough for its own article. -- Kesh 03:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable Third Reich phenomenon, widely used in media their media and in historical works since then. That the current article is used as not-so-subtle attack on Estonians is fixable and has no influence on the term itself. Btw, the first Judenfrei city in the Reich was Luxembourg, if I remember correctly. Merging would made a giant page even more gigantic (WP is supposed to be read by normal people). Pavel Vozenilek 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per several above. Capable of plenty of expansion. Whatever happens don't put a German word in Wiktionary. Johnbod 22:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not only a cross over language word, but also a significant word in the Holocaust. Its certainly more than a dictionary entry. Rgds, --Trident13 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' - People are saying that they can expand the article, let them do so. Holocaust is too long as it is. And judenrein as a concept has carried meaning outside of the context of the Holocaust. Taemyr 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC) Modifying my comment pr jpgordon. Taemyr 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment From the wiktionary front page: Welcome to the English-language Wiktionary, a collaborative project to produce a free, multilingual dictionary. Some people should note multilingual.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Taemyr (talk • contribs) 23:15, June 16, 2007

• Keep - 1) The Nazi glossary has no place in a dictionary; taking these words at their face value amouts to hate speech. 2) The deletion proposal is part of a bad faith denialist campaign targeted against articles in category Category:Holocaust in Estonia. -- Petri Krohn 23:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a strong accusation. What evidence do you have? -- Kesh 00:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• None. Petri Krohn just likes the sound of these words, and thus has thrown them around -- baselessly -- at random occasions at least since january. Any minute now, there'll be a followup: "Have you, or have you not, ever worn socks?". Digwuren 07:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Accusations of "hate speech" and "denialism" campaigns is nonsense and is of itself a demonstration of assuming bad faith --Martintg 01:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Petri Krohn. - Gilliam 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Holocaust or Wannsee Conference. Article is about a term, so should be part of Wikitionary. --Martintg 01:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Before merging there has to be some content to merge. As the article stands it should not be merged anywhere. The concept stands on it's own and seperate from both Holocaust and the Wannsee Conference. Other articles that could use this article; Racial policy of Nazi Germany, and Nazi propaganda. The fact that its several is in itself an indication that the article should be seperate. Taemyr 02:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • That's an ambiguous comment. "[T]here has to be come content to merge" suggests that at present there isn't (hence it should be deleted), but the rest of the comment suggests that there's content which could be merged all over the place. There is, I would argue, nothing against moving the information contained here into six or seven articles. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a faulty premise. The fact that there isn't at present any content does not mean that no content could be added. I am arguing I would like to see about this concept, and that this article is the place to put it. Taemyr 06:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to tally with your original comment. As I read your most recent statement, you want there to be content and for that content to be kept separate. That has nothing to do with the fact that multiple articles could use this information, which reads like a suggestion of merger candidates. Additionally, the fact that there isn't content at present is in fact a serious problem. Not that I'd be entirely comfortable with calling this an empty article, but there's certainly not much content to play with. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a specific concept, and appropriate for a general article. It's quite reasonable for the Holocaust to contain special topics suitable of treating . There is clearely enough material and sources for an article. DGG 08:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. One paragraph in The Holocaust should suffice, since all the article does is define the word and then list three dates in which areas were declared Judenfrei. There's not enough material here for a full article. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Very short article which explains term and lists three dates.--Staberinde 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Short article that has very little content on its own and is worthless without context. DLX 03:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DGG, others. Edward321 03:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Everyking 10:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The most suitable article to merge to is Aryanization. Paul B 14:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds plausible, although I am not changing my keep vote. An othet term that came up is Ausrottung. -- Petri Krohn 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Uncomfortable but notable part of World War II and holocaust history, and the article documents a sort of perverted policy the Nazis followed, not just some random WWII word. The concept is on par with such concepts as Lebensraum and Final solution. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article has been up for AFD for a week now. The article still consists of three sentences and a list of three places. One would think that with all the argument here for how important the concept is, there might have been some significant material added to bolster the argument that the article is a keeper. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless at least one person states that he is interested in expanding the article. Taemyr 01:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Petri Krohn--Dojarca 06:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, possibly merge to somewhere. Despite WINAD concerns, this is an important piece of Nazi vocabulary, useful to provide terminological context for Holocaust-related articles. Sandstein 19:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A concept that is more than a dicdef. Needs expansion, but we don't delete start-level articles, we build on them. --Groggy Dice T | C 00:11, 22 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.