Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horilka

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. `'mikkanarxi 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Horilka

del. The word simply means vodka in Ukrainian language. Pertsivka is a brand, horilka is not. `'mikkanarxi 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, you should know better than to sneak this on to AFD, whether on purpose or by accident. WP:AFD#How to list pages for deletion requires a clear edit summary to be posted when you add the notice to the top of the page. I'll do that now, and let's restart the clock. —Michael Z. 2006-12-09 17:43 Z

Michael Z you should know better that there is a small button with the text "page history" on it:

(cur) (last) 07:04, 5 December 2006 Mikkalai (Talk | contribs | block) ({{subst:afd}})

`'mikkanarxi 02:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that when I went through the history before I went back and did it the right way. I had missed the shorthand on my watchlist, and only realized this article was up for deletion when Mukadderat posted it to the portal announcements. The deletion guideline is specific about what should be in the edit summary, and you failed to follow it.

And my note at the top of this page is correct; it's disingenuous of you to delete it with an empty edit summary. —Michael Z. 2006-12-11 18:00 Z

Nope, the edit summary was exactly what I did: subst:afd. There is no ironclad demand to write summary exactly to the letter. `'mikkanarxi 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I find it absolutely inacceptable to discuss this issue without notifying people who could shed the light on the issue, namely Ukrainian wikipedians. So far it is a competition of amateurs doing original research, with the exception of Russian wikipedians who may be biased. Therefore I notified Ukrainian, Polish and Russian notice boards and suggest the extension of the voting period. Mukadderat 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - added this link. I think it's a notable and verifiable cultural drink. Crum375 03:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Can't you read what I have written? "Horilka" means vodka. Even your linked article says so; quoting for lazy readers: I could never understand why people drink horilka (horilka is Ukrainian for vodka). Of course, vodka is a notable and verifiable cultural drink in Poland (called wódka or gorzałka there), Belarus (водка, гарэлка ), Russia (водка), and Lithuania (degtine). `'mikkanarxi 03:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I quote from the reference: "a story of horilka, Ukrainian vodka". It may mean generic vodka, but in the Ukranian language and context it refers to the Ukranian vodka; even the WP vodka article mentions the Ukranian variety. Hence it is not just a translation but part of the Ukranian culture, per the reference, which does a good job of putting it in perpective. If there are equivalent sources describing local beverage varieties in other countries, they would be includable also. I guess the issue is whether it merits its own article vs. being merged into vodka, which is of course an option. Crum375 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It is a fairly common trick to slip in some national words to add some national flavor. Even in "brotherly" Russian language sometimes Ukrainian words are used, eg. "divchina" (a girl), to stress that we are speaking about an Ukrainian maiden, as, eg in the song "Chernobrovaya divchina" ("Black-eyebrowed Girl"). But of course I hope no one will come up with a crazy idea to write an article "divchina", despite 42,700(!) google hits and despite the fact that divchinas are a quite distinctive subclass of girls :-).`'mikkanarxi 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
        • I think you'd agree that generically, vodka is at least as famous as whiskey. If whiskey can have separate articles for many of its famous national varieties (Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian, as DvonD notes below), why can't vodka? Just because this is the English Wikipedia doesn't mean that Eastern varieties get lumped into a single article while Western varieties warrant individual articles. This is not a WP:DICDEF issue, as horilka has significant cultural connotations, per the reference. The only issue is justification of separate article-hood vs. being shoved (merged) into a one-size-fits-all 'vodka'. Crum375 13:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
          • Didi you notice some significant differences betweeen Scotch whiskey, Canadian whisky etc. and horilka? First, all of them are "whiskeys", and "Scothch" is a just a popular shorthand. Second, I cannot imagine a sentence like this: To be called Scotch whisky, the spirit must conform to the standards of the Scotch Whisky Order of 1990 (UK), in horilka article. Horilka is not a brand. See eg. this horilka pic. The label says it is "vodka", not "horilka". `'mikkanarxi 01:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not a slang dictionary. I am Russian and I know that gorilka is a slang word for Ukranian pepper vodka. --Ineffable3000 03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If that's the case in the Russian language, how does that affect its definition in Ukrainian (which is not a slang term)? The question is not what the word means in Russian, it's what it means to English speakers. Is it the same as vodka or somehow different either because it is different in substance or because of its national origin? DvonD 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WINAD. Not that useful a redirect because it doesn't appear to be a search term. MER-C 06:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dictionary definition. I would advocate a transwiki to wiktionary, but I think urbandictionary's a better place for slang. Ultra-Loser <sup>[ T ] [ C ]</sup> 08:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • It is. Horilka, however, is not slang. The debate is whether it is in fact a word for vodka in a different language or it is another beverage. DvonD 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, although the horilka I tasted in Dnepropetrovsk differed from Russian vodka significantly :) --Ghirla <sup>-трёп-</sup> 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • If your personal experience indicates to you that it is different, what is your reasoning for voting to delete? DvonD 22:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, dicdef, it may deserve a place on Wiktionary. Terence Ong 10:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Vodka. Just H 11:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I have specifically purchased horilka as it is prepared somewhat differently and frequently flavored differently than vodka and other similar distilled spirits. It likely has informed and been informed by vodka distillation as they have much in common, but it is at least as different from the latter as various forms of whisk(e)y are from each other, e.g., Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian, and others, all of which are whiskies or whiskeys, but none of which are referred to generically. Also, I understand that horilka has political and nationalistic connotations in Ukraine, and while I do not know much more about these myself, it is an area of the article that could yet be added. DvonD 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What was the exact name of horilka you specifically purchased? Reference, please. `'mikkanarxi 01:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Vodka and redirect. While it may be somewhat distinct (as a subtype of vodka), it doesn't seem to warrant its own article. AubreyEllenShomo 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My recommendation stands as merge and redirect, but I would like to note I would not be adverse to a merge and delete, should the consensus trend to delete. AubreyEllenShomo 21:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Chinese beer has about 4% alcohol content, unlike US (5%). I'm not about to argue for a separate article for Chinese beer (although Tsingtao would justify its own article). Xiner 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What many here seem to miss is that the criteria for inclusion of an article have little if anything to do with what we 'think' or 'feel', and mostly to do with verifiable notability. Either you have the right reliable sources showing notability or you don't. In this case, this source appears to show that horilka, i.e. the specific Ukranian variety of vodka, is part of the Ukranian tradition and culture. No less than Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian are in their own countries, all justifying their own articles and not lumped into a single one. If there was an article showing that Chinese beer is an important part of Chinese culture, then yes, by all means it could have an article. But the criterion is, like any WP article, the availability of the appropriate and acceptable sources, not our subjective feelings here. Crum375 23:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The source is bulshit. See comment below. `'mikkanarxi 01:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
      • It isn't. See below comment. DvonD 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The whiskey example is a compelling one. This does demonstrate our natural tendency to favor topics that fall more clearly within a Western European idiom.--Dmz5 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

comment the webpage in the reference list is a journalism bullshit. Like, "My research indicates that vodka was a product borrowed by Russians from the Ukrainian Cossacks some time in the fifteenth or sixteenth century." Not a trace of references in his babble (who the heck is he, by the way). A fun to read, but inadmissible for wikipedia. `'mikkanarxi 00:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not bullshit, but it is light writing. The author covers a lot of oral folklore, unfortunately without sources. He makes it clear, several times, that the origin of horilka/vodka as a mystery, and that he is repeating his favourite myth. I'd like to find better academic sources, but there's nothing wrong with this article. —Michael Z. 2006-12-09 22:38 Z

The "journalism bullshit" is from a tourism and cultural journal with an editorial board that fact-checks articles (that's what a journal's editorial board does). It has international distribution in English-speaking countries with over 200,000 of each issue printed. Calling it "journalism bullshit" is much like calling the New York Times' webpages, editorials, or articles bullshit. Furthermore, I have never seen an editor become so personally entangled in the article flagged for deletion as to engage in edit wars and POV -although incorrect- attacks on decent sources. What's the deal? DvonD 01:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers are valid sources for news. A tourism website to check facts? Dont make me laugh. Their job is to sell tours, not to write encyclopedias. I provided an example of a bullshit in his text. And it lost any credibility for me. Re: "I have never seen": huh? Whose sockpuppet you are? `'mikkanarxi 02:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

...which would be right if that's what the site was. It isn't though, it's a cultural journal intended to promote tourism, not a tourism website. And you are the one who's been editing from more than one user name, Mikki. DvonD 02:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

About sockpuppetry issue: you have only done a dozen or two edits and now writing "I have never seen an editor" meaning that you have a reasonably long experience in wikipedia do draw such a conclusion. Usually this happens to sockpuppets who are forgetting that they are writing under new account and start acting as aged editors. `'mikkanarxi 04:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am withdrawing from editing and discussing the article in question. I have found Mikkalai, mikkanarxi to be unreasonable, offensive, and agenda-driven and will no longer participate in the discussion with him. My previous discussion points, if so desired, may be voided. DvonD 03:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • What's wrong with agenda besides being an offensive version of the expression "strong position"? And I am defensive not offensive here: I am defending wikipedia from unreasonable speculations. `'mikkanarxi 04:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I have done some more work on the article, added sources and spruced it up some. I am sure it can be improved further. Crum375 05:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
• delele. No solid evidence provided that horilka is anything else but vodka (which may be flavored, as the vodka article says). May I also bring to your attention the fact that when googling for "horilka" in the first several pages (of not co big number of hits, by the way) I didn't find any manufacturers or importers of this drink. Whereas "vodka + ukraine" immediately gives plenty links to "Manufactureres, Suppliers, Factories, Exporters" and of course, brands.

And recent addition about "traditions" is simply funny: a tradition to get drunk on a good occasion is worldwide and is certainly doesn't make "horilka" something different from vodka. Mukadderat 18:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think ridiculing or belittling a national custom is contrary to WP rules. The source clearly mentions Horilka as part of the Wedding tradition. It doesn't say 'Vodka'. Someone reading that article, who is not sure what Horilka is, could then click on 'Horilka' in WP and learn all about it. This is WP's mission. Remember the only issue for us to decide at an AfD is "is the subject's notability well sourced". IMO there is little doubt that Horilka is notable as the Ukranian variety of Vodka. And per above, lumping all Vodka varieties inside one Vodka article because it is an Eastern European drink, while all Whiskey variants get their own articles because they are Western, runs counter to WP's mission to inform all people about all cultures, not just focus on Western culture. Crum375 22:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please describe the the national custom I ridiculed from which it is clear that hiorilka is something different than vodka. Drinking dead during weddings is not a national custom. The article you quoted about "tradition" merely lists a purchase of various food for wedding, with vodka just one item. To call a feast after wedding a "national tradition" is ridiculous. It is a worldwide tradition. Please provide reference where it describes that horilka is something else than flavored vodka, i.e., horilka is a brand of vodka like champagne or cabernet. Please provide a reverence to ukrainiab brands of vodka that are labelled as "horilka" in English. Tnen we may talk seriously. Mukadderat 16:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is one example, the 'Taras Bulba Horilka'. There are many more in the article, if you look at the Gallery of Horilka brands. Please don't be so negative. There are clearly good references. Many nations have a favorite drink, often several local varieties. The national varieties often are similar in different countries, but they are not identical, and they have a national characteristic and identity. As long as a given country has well sourced notability for its own local drink variety, it is acceptable on WP. Just because en-WP is English doesn't mean it has to focus on and specialize in the English speaking countries. If country X has local drink Y (with its local flavoring and additives) and it is published in a reliable source, WP can have an article for it. WP is not paper and has room for all countries of the world, not just the English speaking ones, with their Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian. WP has room for Horilka. Crum375 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I also find it absolutely ridiculous to discuss thi issue without notifying people who could shed the light on the issue, namely Ukrainian wikipedians. So far it is a competition of amateurs doing original research, with the exception of Russian wikipedians who may be biased. Therefore I am notifying the corresponding message boards and suggest the extension of the voting period. Mukadderat 16:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Crum375 20:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no problem with keeping it. —dmytro/s-ko/ 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep—In Taras Bulba, Nikolai Gogol wrote gorelka, and not vodka, because he knew the drink has a cultural significance. His translators simply write "vodka" or "corn-brandy," because the English language doesn't acknowledge the significance, and they didn't think they could convey what all Russians and Ukrainians know in a brief footnote. And so the English reader's understanding of Gogol's work is diminished in a small way. But fortunately, we now have Wikipedia to make things clear. —Michael Z. 2006-12-09 22:00 Z
• Keep Seems ligit. Sources seem ok. Whats the problem? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Vodka whatever differences these two beverages have it can be explained in a section of Vodka article Alex Bakharev 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• If we merge with Vodka, we are back to square one. It will then be the case that for Western cultures WP offers an article per Whiskey-variant (Scotch, Irish, bourbon, rye, Canadian), whereas for those 'foreign' Eastern European cultures we just lump all their Vodka-variants into one article. I think WP is big enough to support variants for both Western and Eastern cultures. Crum375 23:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Mzajac, et. al.--Riurik ^(discuss) 22:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the list of Whiskey-variants provided by Crum375 two lines above. --KPbIC 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete the article itself says that horilka "may also be used in a generic sense in the Ukrainian language to mean whisky, or other strong spirits," therefore it's no surprise that it is used to refer to vodka in Ukraine. While a look at Whisky tells you what makes the particular variant different, Horilka has nothing in it to differentiate it from vodka, so by WP:WINAD, this should be deleted. --Daniel Olsen 05:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• It was a hard discision, but I have to go to delete, first of all the term is abstract, and whilst it plays a key role in Ukrainian culture, it can not only reffer to Vodka but also to Moonshine, and the countries in the latter are clearly lablled as having their own cultural link to the drink. If anything then what's next? How different villages locals call the vodkas? I will laugh when I see an article on our local name sorokogradusnik --Kuban Cossack 17:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, why not! If we have articles such as Lett's Brewery or Macardle Moore Brewery, why not Horilka or even sorokogradusnik? ... al Seabhcán bin Baloney (Hows my driving?) 17:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Remember again that WP is not paper. This means that once reliable notability is established, our goal is to help our readers. All you need to do is imagine someone reading an article related to Ukraine, seeing Horilka mentioned, then clicking on the WP entry, and getting all s/he wants to know about it. Label pictures, the cultural connections, the Taras Bulba quote, the various peppers and spices that are added for taste, the reference articles, etc. IOW, once that person reads our article s/he would become educated as to what Horilka means, much more (and easier) than searching some Ukranian dictionary which will never have this potential wealth of information. Our not being paper allows us to better serve our readers, and this would be a good example. Crum375 23:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  • all reasonable articles say that "horilka is ukrainian word for vodka". Cultural connections about drinking vodka during various feasts is laughable to present as "national ukrainian tradition". It is a misinformation of readers, not information. `'mikkanarxi 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Source #2 says: "The Scots drink Scotch whisky; the French drink wine; the Germans drink beer, and the Arabs drink coffee — to provide just a few obvious examples. For the Ukrainians horilka is probably the most widely consumed liquor and it sort of gives it the status of “a national drink.”". You say it's the same as the Russian vodka, just a different word. If so, it would not be a "national" drink. It also says "Ukrainian horilka for quite the wrong reasons is often referred to in the west as “Russian vodka.”". Again, there is a distinction made. All I am saying is that Horilka can stand on its own feet in its own article, without getting lumped into a common Vodka article, just like the Western Whiskey varieties have their own individual articles, per WP is not paper, as we noted above. Crum375 03:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Which is "source #2"? This is wiki, sir, and quite soon it may become "source #31". Link, please. `'mikkanarxi 03:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK. I looked thru all of them, (it is #1 now, btw), and I see it is "Welcome to Ukraine". A piece of advertisement bullshitting again: "most widely consumed liquor". Who run the statistics? Who separated Ukrainian vodka from Polish, belarussian, russian, moonsihine, etc.? I can agree that all brands of vodka together give "the most drinkable" status. But the quoted statment without any solid ref is just a random speculation. `'mikkanarxi 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • My point was not to show there is scientific statistical proof that Horilka labeled bottles are consumed more than others in the Ukraine, although I suspect it's true. My point was simply to show that we have a source saying that Ukrainians consider Horilka, not 'vodka', their national drink. We also know that Horlika (as a bottle label) typically contains various spices that make it 'stronger and spicier' than Russian vodka. Bottom line: Ukranians consider Horilka, not vodka, their national drink, and Horilka is typically stronger and spicier than Russian vodka, hence it deserves its own article, just like the Western national varieties of Whiskey have theirs. Crum375 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• No !vote. Tough one. Although it appears well established that horilka indeed just means vodka[1] or even any booze[2], the contents of the article appear a reasonable subject for an encyclopedia that is not made of paper: "vodka in Ukrania: how we spice it, what local brands we have, how we drink it". Weregerbil 16:49, 11 December 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.