Talk:keinen Erfolg haben

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

keinen Efrfolg haben

Isn't that pretty much a "SoP" of "keinen" and "Erfolg haben"? Also: Aren't "nicht erfolgreich sein" (there are links to this in some entry) and "erfolgreich sein" and maybe "Erfolg haben" SoP? -80.133.107.114 15:09, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete, SOP. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
• There is a precarious difference between phraseology and "SoP". How is a non-native speaker going to decide if the negation of "Erfolg haben" is "keinen Erfolg haben" or *"nicht Erfolg haben"? Now, a normal dictionary would present usage under the lemma itself, in this case "Erfolg", but since (in my understanding, but then I could never even remotely grasp the rationale behind this, as all I can see are the inconsistencies and out-of-the-blue administrative decisions without the philology to back them up) Wiktionary follows a "splitter" philosophy of "every possible derivation, inflection or permutation needs its own lemma", it would seem that all phraseology needs to be kept? This is not a vote, just a request for clarification on project policy. --Dbachmann (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
  • There are other ways to show users how to negate "Erfolg haben" without creating an entry for an expression that can be understood by looking up kein(en), Erfolg, and haben. We can add "{{t|de|[[keinen]] [[Erfolg]] [[haben]]}} {{i|‘be unsuccessful’}}" to the translation table at unsuccessful; we can include a usage example like {{ux|de|Er hat keinen '''Erfolg''' gehabt.|He was unsuccessful}} at Erfolg and so on. Even our tendency to create separate entries for things does need some checks put on it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    • this is exactly how I would prefer to do it :) --Dbachmann (talk) 05:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)