Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:02, 11 July 2006

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)

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". dab (ᛏ) 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)