Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Komšiluk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-04 02:29Z
[edit] Komšiluk
Dicdef with a bit of WP:OR. While I personally agree with the sentiment of the text, it reads like a personal essay... in fact, it is a personal essay. Sorry, not encyclopedic. Duja► 10:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Withdrawn. Duja► 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep The article needes a clean up by someone in the know. However, Komšiluk appears to be a cultural effect and way of life, much more than a simple dic def. For starter English language references see [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Nuttah68 12:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, living there, I consider myself in the know in a way. However, despite the nice references you provided, all of those are 1-paragraph mentions; my point is, it could be an anthropological study in theory, but I can't foresee how it can be a Wikipedia article without an existing thorough anthropological study. I mean, I could expand the article reasonably well, but I don't see how to do it without an original research of my own; and I'm not an anthropologist. To be clear, I'm not eager to delete this article, just questioning its encyclopedic value without a solid pre-existing ground. Duja► 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- The first reference is an academic reference. Whilst the coverage is not massive, it gives an academic definition of the term - 'The point may be made more clear by looking at pre-war Bosnia. The institution of komšiluk (from Turkish) established clear obligations of reciprocity between people of different “nations” living in close proximity but also prohibited intermarriage between members of these religiously defined groups (Bringa 1995:66–84). Xavier Bougarel (1996:81–88) has argued that this relationship based on proximity was antithetical to one based on intimacy: marriage. While the idea of “citizen” is abstract,he says, “neighbor” (komšija) was always concrete. Essentially, then, the practices of komšiluk regulated re-lations between individuals as representatives of groupsthat chanced to live in close proximity while the groupsthemselves remained in structural opposition, un-mixable.' - It also gives further references that have discussed the theory of Komšiluk. As I said, I believe that there is more than enough academic coverage out there to create a properly referenced article. What it needs is someone knowledgable in anthropology to pull it together. Nuttah68 14:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, living there, I consider myself in the know in a way. However, despite the nice references you provided, all of those are 1-paragraph mentions; my point is, it could be an anthropological study in theory, but I can't foresee how it can be a Wikipedia article without an existing thorough anthropological study. I mean, I could expand the article reasonably well, but I don't see how to do it without an original research of my own; and I'm not an anthropologist. To be clear, I'm not eager to delete this article, just questioning its encyclopedic value without a solid pre-existing ground. Duja► 14:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, on a more thorough research, the concept was recognized by several anthropological/historical studies. here, some more, book search. It might be worth expansion indeed. I'm withdrawing the nomination. Duja► 14:12, 1 March 2007 (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.
