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. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hebrew exonyms[edit]

Hebrew exonyms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

De-prodded/repost. Deprodded because I thought that Given reason was WP:WPNOT (How-to guide and dictionary were mentioned.) My vote: Keep and improve. Doesn't qualify on either cited criterion because there are numerous "(Language) exonyms". Gosox5555 (talk) 22:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unaware of the principle that if numerous articles already violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then the policies and guidelines disappear. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual of, among other things, how to speak foreign languages. In Wikipedia, or any encyclopedia, why does it make any more sense to have a list of another language's words for various countries than it does to fill large articles with all the words each language has for almost anything? —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk)  · @740  ·  16:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't worry about the space, per WP:DWAP. I must say that I'm reconsidering my innitial vote. Gosox5555 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2009 (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.