| Revision as of 21:05, 11 July 2006 editGreier (talk | contribs)2,160 edits →[]← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:45, 15 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. '' | |||
| <!--Template:Afd top | |||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | |||
| The result was '''delete'''. ] 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| This article will always be either just a trivial dicdef (of a term whose meaning is entirely transparent from its component parts), or an OR- and POV-dumpfest. I don't see how this should ever be expandable to a real encyclopedic article. ] ] 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | This article will always be either just a trivial dicdef (of a term whose meaning is entirely transparent from its component parts), or an OR- and POV-dumpfest. I don't see how this should ever be expandable to a real encyclopedic article. ] ] 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 24: | ||
| ::::::::any ''philia'' ("philism") exists in minds, deluded or not. Are you saying Scandophilia wasn't real? It was a notable movement in 19th century Britain, I don't understand how you can say it "doesn't exist". If anyone can show that "Vlachophilia" was a notable movement anywhere, at any time, I'll be all for keeping the article. ] <small>]</small> 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | ::::::::any ''philia'' ("philism") exists in minds, deluded or not. Are you saying Scandophilia wasn't real? It was a notable movement in 19th century Britain, I don't understand how you can say it "doesn't exist". If anyone can show that "Vlachophilia" was a notable movement anywhere, at any time, I'll be all for keeping the article. ] <small>]</small> 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::::Whtether those hypothetical individual instances of Scandophilia together formed a total of a notable social-political phenomenon, to quote FutPerf, is POV. Plus that Google backs that . 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | :::::::::Whtether those hypothetical individual instances of Scandophilia together formed a total of a notable social-political phenomenon, to quote FutPerf, is POV. Plus that Google backs that . 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::(Edit conflict - to dab): Well Vlachophilia gets more than twice the number of Google hits than Scandophilia (back to the basics). Philhellenism was a significant political movement; can the same be said for Vlachophilia? I don't know enough about Scandophilia to comment, except that it scores low on Google. I see no problem in keeping them all - the main problem with the ] article is the edit warring is causes (and will cause more if it's anything like the article on the ] it is in reference to). --] 21:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::(to Dbachman) And are you implying that my ''philia'', may that be vlacho- or pedo- is a delusion? 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::what is going on? this isn't the AfD for ]. If you put that on AfD, I will happily produce evidence that the concept is indeed notable. Although I might suggest the entry be merged with ]. Note that there are other synonyms, like ]. We are here to discuss the notability of ''Vlachophilia'', and the burden to show that the term is notable lies with the people who want to keep the title separate from ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Is sufficient proof of notability? It gets one hit in Google Scholar. I wasn't however able to find any hits for Scandophile or derivatives. --] 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :hm, this is proof that it's a ''word'', meaning it can safely be moved to wiktionary. I suppose the article could at least be a "]", but I see no reason not to redirect unless we get evidence that this was some sort of ''movement'' that can be pinpointed in space and time. Thus, '''redirect''', either to ], or to ] if such a (''sourced'') list is compiled. Note that I also tagged ] for merging, on the same grounds. Imho, this isn't a case for AfD at all, but a case for using {{tl|merge}}. ] <small>]</small> 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' - I'm not a hater (Vlachophobe?), but this is a dicdef, and non-notable to boot. --] 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' their is no need for such an article about a term(?) hardly used anywhere. --] 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Delete''' per nom as dicdef. ] 08:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | |||
Latest revision as of 10:45, 15 February 2022
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Vlachophile
This article will always be either just a trivial dicdef (of a term whose meaning is entirely transparent from its component parts), or an OR- and POV-dumpfest. I don't see how this should ever be expandable to a real encyclopedic article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- You can say the same about Hellenophile, Anglophile, Germanophile, Francophile, Scandophile, etc. All of what you say is Greek POV. You can make up very nice words and expresions, like "trivial dicdef" and "entirely transparent from its component parts", and try to "spell" people, but unless you give proper (which comply to Misplaced Pages rules) reasons as for this article should be deleted, it stays. 18:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- borderline notability. some 50 google hits. redirect to Vlachs until evidence for the term's notability is cited. this ("Pouqeville: A 19th century Vlachophile Frenchmen") may be evidence that the term is in use, but note the domain name "vlachophiles.net", indicating that it may just be idiosyncratic coinage. dab (ᛏ) 20:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: I think it's not so much a matter of whether the term exists, that would still make it just a dicdef. Sure, I'm a Vlachophile myself, a card-carrying one at that, so hey, I've just used the term, hence it exists. The question is whether all these hypothetical individual instances of Vlachophilia together form a total of a notable social-political phenomenon. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, I think Hellenophile should redirect to Philhellenes. --Tēlex 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly, and Philhellenism is just such a real social/historical phenomenon. Something an encyclopedia article can actually say something about: where was it common, when, among whom, what causes and consequences did it have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever decision is made, I expect no double measures for the articles Scandophile, Germanophile, Francophile, etc. 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course. Keep 'em all or delete 'em all.--Tēlex 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- not at all! We've just established that Hellenophilia (Philhellenism) was a notable phenomenon. There can be a full article treating its (and the term's) history etc.; the only question here is, does the term "Vlachophile" have comparable notability. In my vote above, I say that I think this unlikely. "Keep 'em all or delete 'em all" is a horrible approach. Shall we delete Hellenophile because there is no such word as Togophile or Khakasophile? The only thing that counts is, does the term and/or concept have encyclopedic notability. dab (ᛏ) 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- And who is the one to judge that? Who is the one to judge that the Khakas are not as "worthy" as the Greeks? Or how about Scandophiles??? Should we make their opinion a un-noticeable "pecularity"? Are ideas no longer founded on the dignity of the one`s views, but subject to the will of the stronger part? Are Google hits the way to count how much something matters or not? greier 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages:Notability does (the term's notability, not the group's "worthiness"). sheesh, have we still got no further, on AfD? dab (ᛏ) 21:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- And who is the one to judge that? Who is the one to judge that the Khakas are not as "worthy" as the Greeks? Or how about Scandophiles??? Should we make their opinion a un-noticeable "pecularity"? Are ideas no longer founded on the dignity of the one`s views, but subject to the will of the stronger part? Are Google hits the way to count how much something matters or not? greier 20:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I was thinking of the ones Greier pointed out. Comparing Philhellenism with Scandophilism (?) is like comparing Anti-Semitism to Anti-Romanianism. The former exists, the latter exists only in the minds of delusional nationalists. The former deserves an article, the latter doesn't. --Tēlex 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- any philia ("philism") exists in minds, deluded or not. Are you saying Scandophilia wasn't real? It was a notable movement in 19th century Britain, I don't understand how you can say it "doesn't exist". If anyone can show that "Vlachophilia" was a notable movement anywhere, at any time, I'll be all for keeping the article. dab (ᛏ) 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict - to dab): Well Vlachophilia gets more than twice the number of Google hits than Scandophilia (back to the basics). Philhellenism was a significant political movement; can the same be said for Vlachophilia? I don't know enough about Scandophilia to comment, except that it scores low on Google. I see no problem in keeping them all - the main problem with the Vlachophile article is the edit warring is causes (and will cause more if it's anything like the article on the Aromanians it is in reference to). --Tēlex 21:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- (to Dbachman) And are you implying that my philia, may that be vlacho- or pedo- is a delusion? 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- what is going on? this isn't the AfD for Scandophile. If you put that on AfD, I will happily produce evidence that the concept is indeed notable. Although I might suggest the entry be merged with Viking revival. Note that there are other synonyms, like Septentrionalism. We are here to discuss the notability of Vlachophilia, and the burden to show that the term is notable lies with the people who want to keep the title separate from Vlachs. dab (ᛏ) 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- (to Dbachman) And are you implying that my philia, may that be vlacho- or pedo- is a delusion? 21:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- not at all! We've just established that Hellenophilia (Philhellenism) was a notable phenomenon. There can be a full article treating its (and the term's) history etc.; the only question here is, does the term "Vlachophile" have comparable notability. In my vote above, I say that I think this unlikely. "Keep 'em all or delete 'em all" is a horrible approach. Shall we delete Hellenophile because there is no such word as Togophile or Khakasophile? The only thing that counts is, does the term and/or concept have encyclopedic notability. dab (ᛏ) 20:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course. Keep 'em all or delete 'em all.--Tēlex 20:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever decision is made, I expect no double measures for the articles Scandophile, Germanophile, Francophile, etc. 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Exactly, and Philhellenism is just such a real social/historical phenomenon. Something an encyclopedia article can actually say something about: where was it common, when, among whom, what causes and consequences did it have. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- BTW, I think Hellenophile should redirect to Philhellenes. --Tēlex 20:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Is this sufficient proof of notability? It gets one hit in Google Scholar. I wasn't however able to find any hits for Scandophile or derivatives. --Tēlex 21:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- hm, this is proof that it's a word, meaning it can safely be moved to wiktionary. I suppose the article could at least be a "List of Vlachophiles", but I see no reason not to redirect unless we get evidence that this was some sort of movement that can be pinpointed in space and time. Thus, redirect, either to Vlachs, or to List of Vlachophiles if such a (sourced) list is compiled. Note that I also tagged Scandophile for merging, on the same grounds. Imho, this isn't a case for AfD at all, but a case for using {{merge}}. dab (ᛏ) 21:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm not a hater (Vlachophobe?), but this is a dicdef, and non-notable to boot. --PresN 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete their is no need for such an article about a term(?) hardly used anywhere. --Hectorian 22:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom as dicdef. Tychocat 08:03, 12 July 2006 (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.