Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dônk

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 Delete, according to the debate, seems to be a dicdef, at best. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dônk

Dônk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Disputed prod, prod reason was "Appears to be a hoax. For example, following up the reference "Fatal accidents and suicide among reindeer herding Sami in Sweden", available online here (PDF), there are no mentions of anything that could be construed as providing a reference for this article. The other references seem questionable as well, and the term gets no relevant Google hits besides Wikipedia mirrors.". There's a lot of sources, but they look suspect to me. I'm pushing for a Delete here. UsaSatsui (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Looks like either a hoax, or original research. Sources are very suspect. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • A large number of refs have been added, however, none of those seem to be reliable sources per WP:RS, or they don't have significant coverage. For now I will stick with delete. My first comment that it may be a hoax was poorly chosen, but I have yet to see a strong indication of notability. A merge & redirect into Moonshine#Sweden might be the best option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martijn Hoekstra (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This is not a hoax. [1] It may be a slang term but if the sources are correct then it meets notability. --neonwhite user page talk 19:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I see the word "Dônk" on that page, but I don't know the language, so I don't know what context it is in. For all I know, it could be the name of a color. It's a start, but I need more than that before I change my mind. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
They're instructions for a drinking game, which i believe this is commonly used in. Ultimately the book sources need checking. --neonwhite user page talk 03:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • So it's referring to what you drink at the time...hmm. I'm not sure. I also think that the fact the author of the page is "Master Donk" doesn't help things. Still, enough to make it a Neutral for me by now. We'll see what comes up in the sources. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm convinced. Delete. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, I can verify that almost all the sources exist but not that they provide verification of Dônk (which in any case uses non-standard orthography for both Sweden and Norway). Perhaps it does exist, but it does not seem notable, unless it is also known by another name. --Dhartung | Talk 23:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

weak keep- Keep-google search is not the be all and end all, and I think deletion needs more than the smell test of "this looks suss"... has anyone really looked at these sources? It doesn't seem so, in which case I think this page would be better served by staying around for now and getting the option of additional sources, preferably online ones, and more time to be developed. This AfD is ultimately going to be futile guesswork unless someone actually has checked any of the claimed sources. Is the above guy in favour of keep the author?JJJ999 (talk) 00:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The guy above who verifies it appears to be a serious and credible wiki user, with several factual pages created at least, so for now I feel that's enough to justify a keep, in the absence of any actual evidence not consisting of smell tests. The fact that we haven't heard of it ourselves, and can't find much on google, doesn't necessarily mean much.JJJ999 (talk) 00:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, fabricated references. I've followed up two so far (one of which you can check for yourself via the PDF link in the nomination above) and neither are about the subject. --Delirium (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I will take a look at the PDF later... what of the corroberated evidence offered above? It could be one made up/erroneous source out of a large number...JJJ999 (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
      • The PDF, from what I read, doesn't even mention drinking. And the article doesn't mention reindeer. I pulled it from the sources. As for the other link, well so far, all it does is mention a word that happens to be the title and supposedly uses it in the context of alcoholic beverages. Hardly stellar proof it exists, let alone of notability. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Donk, dönk or dônk is indeed a generic slang tern for moonshine or any kind of home-distilled alcohol in Sweden (I do not know about Norway, but probably there too). As someone from northern Sweden where this is most common, I do not recognize the decription, the ingredients nor the game. Most likely this is written by a group of friends describing their practices. henrik•talk 20:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If it is real, surely it's a fixer upper, which needs to be rewritten, not a hoax.122.148.218.27 (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The threshold for inclusion isn't "It's real" (see this article), but "It's notable". Which means multiple reliable sources. If proven to not be a hoax (which it hasn't), it's still probably deletable under What Wikipedia is Not, either as a dictionary definition or a "made up in one day" thing, or as original research. At most, unless some sources really start popping in (real ones), a redirect to moonshine, but I don't like that solution. --UsaSatsui (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the Civics lesson, but I have a good idea of this stuff already. My point is fairly simple, if this is real, and given it is in another language, it may well be notable, especially if others here have heard of it. This means that given time sources could be found. I'm not convinced 5 days for a hanful of us to find sources in another language is appropriate, if veracity is not an issue. If it's notable enough that some of you know about it, then it should be kept for now, and handed over to a group of Sweedish wikians who might know enough to find sources online or otherwise.JJJ999 (talk) 07:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Isn't that more of a job for Sweedish Wikipedia? --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Notability is world based, something may be notable in Sweeden, and thus notable full stop for wikipedias purposes, without necessarily being notable anywhere else (though the fact people here have heard of it suggests it may well be). Just as I am doubtless ignorant of many notable things. If it is real, as many of you allude to, it seems to me it should be kept, and some wiki users who know more about it, assumedly ones with some sort of Sweedish background, should improve it.JJJ999 (talk) 10:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Again, real does not mean notable. And thus far, the only person here who has admitted to a Sweedish background is pushing for delete. I would also like to point out that the term does not show up on Sweedish Wikipedia at all. Or Sweedish Wictionary. I'm sorry, but I'm holding my Swedish words to the same standard as my English ones. --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A sweedish town nobody has heard of is real, it is also presumed notable. A sweedish drink could be too, notability doesn't have to be in English speaking countries you know. I ask that this be handed over to people who can provide the notability it seems likely to have, albeit not everything in this article as necessarily noteworthy...JJJ999 (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Bad example. Towns are inheritly notable, drinks are not. And I'm not using WP:IDONTKNOWIT here. I've tried to find sources in three languages now, and nothing comes up. Attempts to verify the sources in the article have shown that they have nothing to do with the subject. Here's what we have so far:
      1. A source (since removed) that doesn't mention Dônk at all.
      2. A page that mentions Dônk in the context of a drinking game, written by someone calling themselves "MasterDonk" (I don't see how that can qualify as an independent source)
      3. No Google hits.
      4. A user from Sweeden that verifies that the term can refer to homemade alcohol in his area, but says that the article in question doesn't describe what he's familiar with, and in addition has voted for a delete.
      5. No entry on either the Swedish or Norwegian Wikipedia or Wictionary. Presubably, if this were notable, it would at least have a stub on one of them.
    • Given this information, and the fact that I really can't trust the sources given in the article, I can't see how a keep can be justified. Yes, someone might come along eventually and provide some source to prove it's real, but even then, I don't see how it passes based on it just being a dictionary definition, or it being original research. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm not convinced and nor do I agree. I think more time should be given for now, and it should merely be tagged.JJJ999 (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Gave sources for the provided information. Experts in Scandinavian youth culture are needed. Unclear why this article was proposed for deletion. Enough sources easy to access on-line. There is no source for the recipe given.Bejapolice (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    • What just happened is a good example of why Usagi and others should reverse their votes, and why this process should be far more cautious, as I urged above. Gosh, it's noteable, referenced reliably and real, what a shock. It should have been kept provisionally and tagged in the first place.JJJ999 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Is there anything this article could possibly contain that wouldn't be better covered at Moonshine#Sweden? I don't think we need a separate article for every single slang term for Swedish moonshine, and this doesn't appear to be the most common term for it, so isn't an obvious location for an article. --Delirium (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A slang word for home-brewn alcoholic beverage that I am probably happy never to have tried (not consciously, at least). Most Google hits are forum posts by teenagers and the like. The combination of alcohol-related content and at least partly fake but correctly-looking references makes it likely to be the an expression of student humour. Indeed, many of the earliest contributions are traceable to a student-housing organisation in Copenhagen. (A guess: A Swedish engineering student on an exchange year in Denmark?) Olaus (talk) 09:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
    • As a word it could perhaps be included in the Wiktionary? Olaus (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Note to an admin: Instead of closing, could you please relist this for another 5 days to extend the discussion? I (and I'm sure others) would like a chance to look at the new added sources and discuss this some more. Thanks. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • cheers. I was about to do the same things.JJJ999 (talk) 14:52, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
  • KeepI am sorry to only enter this discussion now, as I have created the first stub article. I wonder how Olaus has traced this to a student-housing organisation in Copenhagen, as this is incorrect. I am living in Denmark though, and created the stub after having been in Southern Sweden where I encountered 'dônk' for the first time - and it was an important part of the local youth culture there. It is different from Moonshine, since this seems to be hard liquor, made from potatoes, whereas this is 'wine' made from fruit juice. The reason for creating the stub was that I looked up dônk on Wikipedia to find out more about it, and to my surprise there was no article. I made the stub and hoped that, in the wikipedian spirit, the article would grow and become more reliable over time. And thanks to this discussion it seems that sources that were deemed dubious are removed, and additional sources are provided. Looking at these sources though, it might well be a Southern-Swedish word and tradition, and not so popular in the rest of Scandinavia as I (wrongfully?) assumed. I suggest keeping the article (since the drink, the word, the recipe, the song and the practice definitely exist, i.e. this is not a hoax, nor a description of me and my friends drinking practice) with a notice for visitors to help improve the article. And thanks to all of you for having this discussion and taking this serious enough, I think it has improved the quality of the article already. Thedonk (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I get the strong feeling nobody can be bothered reading the new sources and changing their vote... if this is the case, it should be kept. the reasons used are just no longer correct.JJJ999 (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Reaffirm delete, even with the new sources. For the following reasons:
  • Most of the new sources are very low quality: blogs, forums or student organization homepages. For example this one, in which the only mention of the word "donk" is a nickname of one of the posters - completely irrelevant, in other words.
  • The Swedes that have commented have voted to delete.
  • It is just a slang term for home-made alcohol, mainly used among youths and students.
The Swedish wiktionary, or a sentence in Moonshine#Sweden would be a more appropriate place for this. henrik•talk 12:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • But most of this stuff is in another language, and I am unmoved by the "Sweedish" votes, which do not seem to have even read the new sources. Neither you nor I can speak Sweedish, if it is real, then I think it should put sent to actual Sweedish experts to fix it.JJJ999 (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm really still not buying the "It's in another language, so we can't delete it" argument. Still. Let's look at these sources and see what we can learn with just a simple Swedish/English translator:
      1. looks like a definition. It's a start, but it only tells us what we already know: It's homebrewed alcohol.
      2. is also a definition. Looks sort of like a Swedish Urban Dictitonary.
      3. is the same page as 1, and seems to refer to...puking? Translation error, maybe.
      4. is about two guys who have been arrested for selling alcohol to underage people. Not about the sale of Dônk in Southern Sweden, as the source says. There is something about how he was suspecting of making his own alcohol, however.
      5. is a wiki (not a RS). It seems to be about a film, there's a script there. The source is probably referring to the line "Han håller upp en dônk-dunk.", which translated to "He is holding up a dônk-tin". Still doesn't tell us more than we know already, and doesn't prove what it's sourced to (the origin of the term).
      6. is a forum post, not even worth translating.
      7. is a forum gallery, and I'm not even sure what it's trying to prove.
      8. is another forum post.
      9. is a...picture? Of a guy holding the stuff? Okay.
      10. ...are profiles where they list their favorite booze.
      11. ......refers to one person as "DonkMaster", but there's a master for everything else, including sex. This is getting silly.
      12. is another picture
      13. is a blog entry. It has the drinking song in it, but so what?
      14. is more pictures. Pictures aren't sources.
      15. is the exact same as 5.
    • So what do we have at the end of the very long list? Dictionary definitions and a few instances of the word being used in context. 15 sources later, and all we have is "Donk is a Swedish term for home brewed alcohol, which is illegal in Sweden and popular with youngsters". I'm sorry, but if you put these sources, in English, into any English article, the thing would have been quickly deleted. I'm all for a merge to Moonshine#Sweden, but this is a dicdef, and Wikipedia is not a Dictionary, regardless of language. --UsaSatsui (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • JJJ999, for your information: I'm a native Swedish speaker, living in Sweden. henrik•talk 19:20, 7 February 2008 (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.