Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giri (Sanskrit)

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. Sandstein 08:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Giri (Sanskrit)

Giri_(Sanskrit) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This article is on a foreign-language word that is NEVER used in English and hence should not be on the English Wikipedia. Ranvir Sena 09:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

A similar article Dada (Hindi), created by User:Classicfilms was deleted[1]. --Ranvir Sena 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 09:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; we certainly don't need an article for every word in every foreign language, and there doesn't seem to be a case presented for why this is an exception. Propaniac 14:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This article, referenced to what looks like to be reliable sources, explains one of the epithets of Krishna and a Sanskrit honorific. That strikes me as meeting any reasonable notability requirements and Wikipedia is still not paper. When the Big Hard Drive gets to be 98% full, we might consider deleting some Sanskrit titles that only Sanksrit speakers know about, but that time has not yet come. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why not create Giriraj instead of this article? This article can NEVER be rationally expanded any further. This is just a Sanskrit word having NO significance at all. There is a Sanskrit Wikipedia and a Sanskrit Wiktionary (having a handful of articlesfor it. Why don't people put Sanskrit words there? The fact is that they have NO language of Sanskrit. They can't even pronounce 'Sanskrit' (sumskrrt actually)! --Ranvir Sena 16:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. At first glance, the article is a dicdef, or a language how-to. However, the word is significant in Hindu mythology, the article simply needs to be improved so that the reader knows what it's aiming that. And sources other than dictionaries would be very welcome, too. --Targeman 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment and Keep The fact the word is Hindi has nothing to do with this AfD Discussion. Transwiki most of teh article to Wikitionary, but keep some of the article for what can and should stay per Policy. Zidel333 18:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep it explains the siugnificance of the word, not merely lists it, and if the article is not adequate philologically, it can be improved. DGG (talk) 07:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
• Merge stuff on honorific/title to Giri and transwiki rest of the stuff (etymology and meaning of the word). I wonder what significance are people who have voted keep are talking about. The article doesn't even assert that the word is notable or common like other Sanskrit words such as ahinsa or satya. This is nothing more than a dicdef, and doesn't belong here. The "references" provided are dictionaries. utcursch | talk 12:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Only learned Indians know that it has no significance here. --Ranvir Sena 12:42, 7 August 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.