Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cerkiew
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 no consensus. But, anyone is free to hold a requested merge on the talk to decide where to (because there was also no consensus on where to merge to, with three articles given). -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 02:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cerkiew
del . 100% foreign dicdef (the 100% adequate tranlsation is "Orthodox church") with some incoherent rambling that churches can be big and small and in some languages orhtodox and catholic churches may be called by diffrent words. `'mikka 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC) NOTE This deletion nomination was changed (around 06:03, 11 January 2007 ) after it was started and after quite a bit of debate. KP Botany 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable in English as a loan word. --Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Redirect to Church (building). (If there were a specific article abou the architecture of Orthodox churches, I'd say redirect it there, but no such article seems to exist.) Redirects are cheap and there seem to be a decent number of English hits for the term on Google books (~800 total hits, of which about 1 in 20 are English). cab 23:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It's rather obscure, but photographs of cerkiew have a strong following in the high end art photography world--this is something not necessary going to show up on the internet. It's obscure, but has a following in the modern context, and could use with a better article, maybe a translation from Pl.wiki. I do know some Old Church Slavonic linguists, so this may also be why I'm familiar with the term, but I think it comes from dealing with gallery owners, and the art world's fascination with images of the Central and Eastern European wooden cerkiew. The word is also used in Russian, and it generally refers to the wooden cerkiew, not the brick ones, when Americans speak about it in photographs. It's the sort of knowledge of a remote topic that people may look up, but other internet sites won't be offering articles about it. I can't actually follow the criteria for deletion that Mikka is offering, but they appear to be criteria for WP:CLEAN not for WP:AfD. Again, crappy is reason for tagging for clean-up and wikifying, not for deleting. Possibly some photographs, gallery owners, and art collectors on Wikipedia can give more information--I wanted to buy a print once, but it was way out of my league. KP Botany 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uncontrolled borrowing is not an argument for arbitrariy enriching English language. I am repeating (and try to prove me that I am wrong): the notion 100% corresponds to "Orthodox church". It is not simply "crappy" I dont suggesting a redirect simpy because this article does not have any content at all beyond polish-english translation. "they are small, but some are big" - very encyclopedic. `'mikka 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that the term corresponds 100% to Orthodox church (with a small "c", so this shouldn't redirect to Orthodox Church). But that's pretty much the point of a redirect; replacing an article/search term which isn't a good title or has no useful content, to point somewhere that actually does have content and is a good title. This is a fairly well-established practise; see {{R from alternative language}}. cab 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- this practice makes sense when a word has a notable currency in English. In your lack of knowledge you even don't see an ironical mockery over the common sense: usage of a polish word to describe an Eastern Orthodox thing. Hint: poles are Catholics. As for "R from.." are you going to make a redirect from zerkiew, sterkov, cerkow, zerkov and a dozen of other languages and transliteraitons as well? Hint: poles are Catholics. While we are here, why don't we also make arkhitektura to point to Russian architecture?
- Concluding, if you don't know a topic you are discussing, you may happily apply rules to screw up any common sense. Ever tried to translate a poem into Tuvan language using a dictionary? `'mikka 03:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Try observing WP:CIVIL, which you seem to have a problem with when you come on AfD lately. The word has been seen in English-language books, which is good enough reason to make it a redirect. And since you were the one who kept repeating "the word corresponds 100% to Orthodox church", I was assuming you actually meant what you said. cab 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- "the word corresponds 100% to Orthodox church" as translated from Polish language. The word does not have presence in English but for Polonized names of some Ukrainian churches. The word is even not Ukrainian, man! (which would be tserkva, церква). That's why I am saying, if you don't know things, you beter ask people who know. Google may screw you up for good, if you don't know what you are looking at. You see the word popping up, but you fail to judge the context properly. And this, like my previous remarks, is not a personal offense, but a word of caution. But if you prefer to feel offended, suit yourself. `'mikka 07:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I suggest asking someone with more expertise, then. Please don't badgers other in these discussions. KP Botany 14:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that the term corresponds 100% to Orthodox church (with a small "c", so this shouldn't redirect to Orthodox Church). But that's pretty much the point of a redirect; replacing an article/search term which isn't a good title or has no useful content, to point somewhere that actually does have content and is a good title. This is a fairly well-established practise; see {{R from alternative language}}. cab 01:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Uncontrolled borrowing is not an argument for arbitrariy enriching English language. I am repeating (and try to prove me that I am wrong): the notion 100% corresponds to "Orthodox church". It is not simply "crappy" I dont suggesting a redirect simpy because this article does not have any content at all beyond polish-english translation. "they are small, but some are big" - very encyclopedic. `'mikka 01:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge for example to Church with citations provided. Redirect otherwise. --Brand спойт 02:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment If merge, to Church (building), not to Church, as it is about the building, not the church, so it corresponds to part of the definition. That's the issue about borrowing words, they don't always borrow exactly--and this one as I have heard it used by Americans did not get borrowed into English to mean what it means in Polish. The English word for "Orthodox church" is "Orthodox church" or "Orthodox Church," it's not "cerkiew". "Cerkiew" as it is used in American-English, as far as I have heard, only refers to wooden Orthodox church buildings in Poland and Lithuania, not to all Orthodox church buildings, not to the ones in America, for example. If we are speaking Polish it means something different. It's like the offensive slang term "Polak" in American English, it is not an offensive term for a person of Polish descent in Polish, it means Polish man in Polish. So, we're speaking English, not Polish. What "cerkiew" means in Polish is not what is at stake for the article. What is, is what it means in English as a borrow word. I still think it is better to consult with someone in the know about the use of the term in American English.KP Botany 02:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Never heard of this English words. Of course, it is used in names eg., Biala Cerkiew (which is a shameless Polonization of Bila Tserkva). If you have a reputable reference, bring it here and we are done with this pointless bickering of POVs. `'mikka 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Mikka, you nominated it for deletion based upon it being a dictionary defintion. Are you changing your reason? And what dictionary did you find it in, btw, as your reason for deletion ('100% dicdef") is POV. What else can we discuss and to what degree but what you offered up for a reason? KP Botany 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Never heard of this English words. Of course, it is used in names eg., Biala Cerkiew (which is a shameless Polonization of Bila Tserkva). If you have a reputable reference, bring it here and we are done with this pointless bickering of POVs. `'mikka 03:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge to Orthodox church (building). -- Petri Krohn 05:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Merge with Orthodox church (building). If what KP Botany is saying is true, then it's reason enough to make this page redirect to that one and add a section there about this word and what it may mean as a "borrowed" word in a certain select segment of English-speakers. And the picture should be moved there too, of course - even if nothing else is kept, that's a good picture of a type of Orthodox church that's not represented in the pictures already there. Esn 06:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to ignore the basic rules of the game: WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE. No reliable sources, no merge. If there were any, this article would not have even been discussed here in the first place. `'mikka 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Response But these aren't the reasons you gave for the nomination. And that's an even more basic rule of the game: nobody has to read your mind. You said to delete because it's "100% dicdef." KP Botany 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK My bad. Sloppy nominaion indeed. Updated a bit.`'mikka 06:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- However, the discussion above was based upon your original nomination, you can't just change it now as if that was what was up for discussion the entire time--you should strike out your original reason and redate the nomination--I have added a note right below the nomination to alert others that what was discussed until this post, wasn't what is currently listed for nomination. Still, you've now changed it to something that isn't so, it isn't a foreign dictionary definition, it's in English. And, again, you haven't nominated it for deletion for WP:Verifiability or WP:CITE or reliable sources, but for "100% foreign dicdef." Meanwhile Esn has provided a reasonable alternative, however, which deals with your reason for deletion, that it's a dictionary definition, and with concerns related to lack of sources and verifiability. KP Botany 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a court of law where you may motion to dismiss on a technicality. The article must be discussed here, not the form of my nomination; the goal here in not to prove that my nomination is without merit, but to prove that the article has sufficient merits. A discussion may reveal both merits and new drawbacks. `'mikka 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- So, exactly WHICH nomination of yours are we discussing? The discussion above was about your first nomination, which you've now changed. Are you saying that you want to attribute all prior discussion to your first nomination? You haven't raised any criteria from the guidelines for AfD and you're the one who demanded that others play by the rules of the game. So, others play by the rules of the game and you change the rules when and where you want? Is that it now? If you're going to raise rules of the game for others, then it should be expected that other editors will challenge you to play by them also. You changed your nomination and made it look like it was some other nomination that editors were discussing. You could have simply renominated, or you could have added a line and comment. You chose neither. The issue of whether or not the article has merits is hinged solely upon the following arguments you now offer (not the same ones discussed): "100% foreign dicdef (the 100% adequate tranlsation is "Orthodox church") with some incoherent rambling that churches can be big and small and in some languages orhtodox and catholic churches may be called by diffrent words." However, your argument that it is a foreign dictionary definition is incorrect. This is en.Wikipedia and the article is in English. You decided what merits should be discussed, and the primary one you raise does not exist. Are you now suggesting the article doesn't need to be in Wikipedia for some other reason that you haven't revealed, that's it is without merit for some additional reason? Another user offered a perfectly acceptable solution that others agreed with, but you don't. So, how and why is this article without merit, and why should other editors' contributions and solutions be ignored? Is this about improving Wikipedia? KP Botany 16:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, and again, Esn provided a reasonable and useful solution to the issue of what to do. Do you disagree with that? KP Botany 16:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- So, exactly WHICH nomination of yours are we discussing? The discussion above was about your first nomination, which you've now changed. Are you saying that you want to attribute all prior discussion to your first nomination? You haven't raised any criteria from the guidelines for AfD and you're the one who demanded that others play by the rules of the game. So, others play by the rules of the game and you change the rules when and where you want? Is that it now? If you're going to raise rules of the game for others, then it should be expected that other editors will challenge you to play by them also. You changed your nomination and made it look like it was some other nomination that editors were discussing. You could have simply renominated, or you could have added a line and comment. You chose neither. The issue of whether or not the article has merits is hinged solely upon the following arguments you now offer (not the same ones discussed): "100% foreign dicdef (the 100% adequate tranlsation is "Orthodox church") with some incoherent rambling that churches can be big and small and in some languages orhtodox and catholic churches may be called by diffrent words." However, your argument that it is a foreign dictionary definition is incorrect. This is en.Wikipedia and the article is in English. You decided what merits should be discussed, and the primary one you raise does not exist. Are you now suggesting the article doesn't need to be in Wikipedia for some other reason that you haven't revealed, that's it is without merit for some additional reason? Another user offered a perfectly acceptable solution that others agreed with, but you don't. So, how and why is this article without merit, and why should other editors' contributions and solutions be ignored? Is this about improving Wikipedia? KP Botany 16:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a court of law where you may motion to dismiss on a technicality. The article must be discussed here, not the form of my nomination; the goal here in not to prove that my nomination is without merit, but to prove that the article has sufficient merits. A discussion may reveal both merits and new drawbacks. `'mikka 02:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
- However, the discussion above was based upon your original nomination, you can't just change it now as if that was what was up for discussion the entire time--you should strike out your original reason and redate the nomination--I have added a note right below the nomination to alert others that what was discussed until this post, wasn't what is currently listed for nomination. Still, you've now changed it to something that isn't so, it isn't a foreign dictionary definition, it's in English. And, again, you haven't nominated it for deletion for WP:Verifiability or WP:CITE or reliable sources, but for "100% foreign dicdef." Meanwhile Esn has provided a reasonable alternative, however, which deals with your reason for deletion, that it's a dictionary definition, and with concerns related to lack of sources and verifiability. KP Botany 14:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK My bad. Sloppy nominaion indeed. Updated a bit.`'mikka 06:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Response But these aren't the reasons you gave for the nomination. And that's an even more basic rule of the game: nobody has to read your mind. You said to delete because it's "100% dicdef." KP Botany 03:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You seem to ignore the basic rules of the game: WP:Verifiability and WP:CITE. No reliable sources, no merge. If there were any, this article would not have even been discussed here in the first place. `'mikka 22:08, 10 January 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.
