Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protochronism

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 Speedy keep - Francis Tyers · 14:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protochronism

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

This word, or term, does not exist in the English language, nor is it recognized in any way. There has been a discussion about this on the talkpage, but the author refused to argue his case. Google gives only 564 hits, most of which come from Wikipedia. This term was transliterated from Romanian "protocronism," but as I've said: the word doesn't exist in the English language. It would be one thing if, perhaps, the article would describe the Romanian usage of the word, but the article doesn't make that clear and one remains to believe that the article refers to an English word, or term. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Thus Spake Anittas 08:17, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. It's a known concept in Romanian culture, but it has been mentioned in many English-language books, including Verdery's book used as a reference, published at University of California Press. If you search "Protochronism" at google books, you can find 41 results, all of them discussing this concept. bogdan 08:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not enough to recognize the term as an existing one. The term does not exist in English. The books that mentioned the word does not try to introduce it to the English language. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? Some of the books do explain the concept. bogdan 08:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep It does not matter how popular the term is on google, because there is an entire literature discussing it. On one hand, if the term is used in Romanian literature and translated into at least one source that bridges the gap, it shouldn't matter if the term has acquired notoriety - since the concept itself is notorious in Romania, and since the subject is unquestionably notable on any wiki. Furthermore, the English spelling is reasonably familiar to scholars and not only, with or without the google hits. Not only, as Bogdan indicates, entire books have been written about Protochronism, using the term (and, yes, Anittas, in the "Protochronism" form), but of the 41 goggle books hits for "Protochronism", virtually all explain and discuss the concept in detail. If there was any doubt in your mind, the Romanian spelling, which reflects a smaller niche on google books, gives 37 results. Dahn 12:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Adding to this: the issue of quality by far overwhelms the issue of quantity. Not only was this article largely written from published paper sources of an academic nature, not only are the google books results academic, but, on google, one finds quite respectable sources using and defining the term (see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). Nuff said. Dahn 12:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And I will not let this piece of sophistry fly past me; above, Anittas wrote "It would be one thing if, perhaps, the article would describe the Romanian usage of the word, but the article doesn't make that clear and one remains to believe that the article refers to an English word, or term." Even if that were true (and, as seen above, it ain't), how is it "not providing the original word" grounds for deletion? Just because Anittas' banned user friends told him they support deleting it (note: because they happen to believe that writing originated in Romania, and this belief has the "power" to wrestle with cited sources...)? Dahn 13:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Anittas misidentified that IP (which is actually from Maryland) as belonging to our banned LA gangsta. :-) bogdan 13:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Lastly, the issue may be one of WP:POINT, concerning this parallel nomination. Dahn 12:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per Dahn and Bogdan. You may not like it, but it's a very valid topic. Incidentally, there are some bizarre theories about Hungarian origin that should probably be included in that article but I haven't got time to hunt for references today...K. Lásztocska 13:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This term does not exist in the English language, regardless of how many books mention it; if, however, one must write an article about it, the article should explain that the term is only used by academics when referring to Romania, and not other countries. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

1. The article is about Romania. 2. In its largest meaning, the term is occasionally used for other countries (such as footnote 2 to page 2, here). Are we just about done? Dahn 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Academics create words all the time. There is a large academic history here, far more than necessary to satisfy WP:NOTE. Wstaffor_talk 14:48, 19 October 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.