Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danglish

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 of the debate was delete. Flowerparty■ 11:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danglish

As currently written [1], this appears to be some kind of joke ("correct" versions of phrases are as incorrect as the "incorrect" versions). -- Curps 14:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep if it can be cleaned up or expanded like other articles in the category Mixed languages, otherwise delete. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. There certainly exist modes of Danish that are heavily infected with English words and idioms, and it is possible to write incomprehensible English by translating Danish syntax or idioms word-by-word. "Danglish" has been used to refer to either phenomenon, but most commonly the former. As written the article attempts to describe the latter, but provides no verifiable encyclopedic information whatsoever. The particular phrases offered as examples do not seem to be informed in particular by Danish (of which I'm a native speaker). Non-salvageable. Henning Makholm 15:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. If someone wants to write a real article on Danish-accented English, they're very welcome to do so. That's got absolutely nothing to do with this one, which is a bad joke. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Makholm. Unencyclopedic. Bucketsofg 16:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic. unfunny joke.  (aeropagitica)  19:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unfunny "joke". If there's a Danish equivalent of Denglish, this isn't it. ProhibitOnions 22:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe a real article can be written on this subject, but the problem isn't that it's a stub. The problem is that it's so silly that anyone trying to write a real article would have to start from scratch regardless of whether or not this "article" remains. --Icarus 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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.