Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of false friends

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 Delete. Mercury 05:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of false friends

Completely unencyclopaedic. Not one source on the whole list (if there is, the amount is so small that scrolling through, they go unnoticed). A huge number (at least half) of the "false friends" would also never be mistaken by a person with a reasonable knowledge of the language (i.e. they could tell that it's not a noun, it's a verb etc.) Either delete or substantially cut down (preferably delete) ^Estoy_Aquí^{(t • c • e)} 23:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, list is totally unsourced and OR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Wow, not too many articles hit AfD that predate me on Wikipedia. This needs cleanup, not deletion. This is not OR, it's the work of dozens if not hundreds of contributers to the project. It needs sources, yes. This should be listed as a page needing sources and left on the site.--CastAStone|^(talk) 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs sourcing and probably a move to a different title; I'll concede that I haven't heard of this being described as "false friends", but that's apparently the term, as shown by this search from Google books Mandsford (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Mandsford. -- Nikolaj Winther (talk) 10:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I, however, agree with TenPoundHammer. Just a load of OR with no sources. Quite an interesting article but no proof to actually say it is correct. It's also very POV. Thundermaster^{Thundermaster's Talk} 11:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This must be one of the dumbest lists I've ever seen. Sorry for the uncivil wording, but I it's honestly the best way to describe it. Mistakes between words in different languages happens all the time this list can go on forever. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially infinitely long list of information about which it is impossible to prove notability. See the "Lead and selection criteria" section of WP:SAL. It may be appropriate and even valuable for some other wiki, but not WP. -Verdatum (talk) 18:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could we just keep the lead and the wikibooks template? I do agree the list should not be on Wikipedia, but can we keep it as a link, basically? —Scouter Sig 20:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Is that not already taken care of within False friends? -Verdatum (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. —Scouter Sig 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. —Scouter Sig 21:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Lawrence Cohen 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article can and should be improved in several respects, but articles that can be improved should not be deleted. The article currently lacks selection criteria, but they can be added, and with good selection criteria, the list won't become endless. Sources can be added as well. Finally, the list has a concise, at-a-glance format that the narrative examples in False friends don't provide. Valerius (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or massively clean-up. I'd say that many of these are either false cognates instead of false friends or are just flat-out wrong. Plus, the list is ridiculously long. RobertM525 (talk) 09:58, 7 December 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.