Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katsap
Source: 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 no consensus to delete, but should probably be transwiki'd if it can't be expanded beyond the current dictionary definition. W.marsh 16:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sory, delete. Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary of all possible foreign slang. Unlike, say, gringo, the term "katsap" is absent in English language. `'mikka 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no notabile usage in English. This was probably created to fill out a redlink in List of ethnic slurs. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki if sourced better, Delete otherwise: it doesn't belong on any language Wikipedia because WP:NOT a dictionary. However, the term's being absent in the English language is not a valid reason for deletion. I keep seeing this argument on AfD and it's wrong. If there were multiple sources written in any language about the term (rather than just using the term), and these provided a basis to write an article that was more than a dicdef, then the subject would be notable and an article on it would be encyclopedic, regardless of the fact that the term is not used in English. There's no such thing as "notable in Ukrainian but not notable in English"; enwiki is an encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia of English. cab 01:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is not wrong. It is not a term, i.e. a thing that refers to some object of notion, possibly unknown in English-speaking world. In your case it is a slang word, i.e., a vulgar synonym and does not introduce a new notion. We have redirects for English synonyms, unless a synonym has a significant text to write about. But to have articles for all possible slang in all possible languages is quite ridiculous. `'mikka 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- notability: Notability is not subjective. Multiple non-trivial instances of coverage = notability. Period. Regardless of language. I guess WP:NEO might be the best way to judge it by; if there are sources which discuss the word (instead of just mentioning the word), then it's notable. In this case, I don't see multiple non-trivial sources which discuss the word; so I agree it's not a notable word; famous authors using the word in their works are just examples of non-trivial coverage. But the fact that it's unknown in English-speaking world doesn't matter. Plenty of articles in enwiki talk about stuff which is otherwise unknown or close to unknown in the English-speaking world, but have sources in other languages proving they're notable. If you applied the same standard to other language, "if this thing is unknown in the Russian/Chinese/Tamil-speaking world, then it's not notable for ruwiki/zhwiki/tawiki", you'd have to delete huge numbers of sourced articles. cab 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- To sum up: I don't see how this is any different than Nigger vs. African-American. cab 14:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- notability: Notability is not subjective. Multiple non-trivial instances of coverage = notability. Period. Regardless of language. I guess WP:NEO might be the best way to judge it by; if there are sources which discuss the word (instead of just mentioning the word), then it's notable. In this case, I don't see multiple non-trivial sources which discuss the word; so I agree it's not a notable word; famous authors using the word in their works are just examples of non-trivial coverage. But the fact that it's unknown in English-speaking world doesn't matter. Plenty of articles in enwiki talk about stuff which is otherwise unknown or close to unknown in the English-speaking world, but have sources in other languages proving they're notable. If you applied the same standard to other language, "if this thing is unknown in the Russian/Chinese/Tamil-speaking world, then it's not notable for ruwiki/zhwiki/tawiki", you'd have to delete huge numbers of sourced articles. cab 14:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument is not wrong. It is not a term, i.e. a thing that refers to some object of notion, possibly unknown in English-speaking world. In your case it is a slang word, i.e., a vulgar synonym and does not introduce a new notion. We have redirects for English synonyms, unless a synonym has a significant text to write about. But to have articles for all possible slang in all possible languages is quite ridiculous. `'mikka 01:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Care to notify the Ukrainian Wikipedia community at the notice board. Even Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias have articles about this. If we expand it, it might be a pretty good article. Anyway, this article does not only speak about ethnic slur... see section Other uses of the word Even famous Ukrainian writers Mykola Gogol and Taras Shevchenko use this word, which asserts notability (see here) —dima/s-ko/ 02:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per DDIma. For a word not in the english language, it sure gets around alot.--tufkaa 03:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Inherently POV. Maybe appropriate for Ukrainian or Russian wikipedia. Not for English wikipedia. --- Safemariner 07:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't know whether this merits an article here (I suspect it was introduced to balance khokhol) but it certainly needs cleaning up and sourcing. The exact same word, kacap, is an insult for Russians in Polish. So what came first, the Ukrainian or the Polish term? Or do they have a common source? Unfortunately, the unreferenced etymologies given in this article just look like guessing. If this term is as notable as is claimed, there should be some reliable sources out there to decide this issue and provide this page with the references it lacks. --Folantin 11:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep or let's delete Khokhol as "Wikipedia is not an etymological dictionary of all possible foreign slang" and "the term "Khokhol" is absent in English language" using your own argumentation.--Bryndza 13:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would agree that if this goes, then Khokhol (another undersourced article about an ethnic slur) should go too. By the looks of things, the Ukrainian article has sources (though some of them are pretty old) and makes a distinction between the folk etymology of the word and scholarly attempts to find its origin. Bring in more info from the Ukrainian wikipedia and you'll have a stronger case for keeping this page. --Folantin 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the Khokhol article should be deleted too. --- Safemariner 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Khokhol might just qualify for inclusion as borderline notable. I've come across references to that term being used by Russian WWII officers to denigrate their Ukranian underlings. Moreschi Deletion! 17:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then the Khokhol article should be deleted too. --- Safemariner 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I would agree that if this goes, then Khokhol (another undersourced article about an ethnic slur) should go too. By the looks of things, the Ukrainian article has sources (though some of them are pretty old) and makes a distinction between the folk etymology of the word and scholarly attempts to find its origin. Bring in more info from the Ukrainian wikipedia and you'll have a stronger case for keeping this page. --Folantin 14:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this, however, but without prejudice against recreation. No reliable sources. If anyone provides reliable sources during this AFD, then keep. If you find them later, then just recreate. But we cannot have articles that so completely fail WP:V, even for a second. WP:V is non-negotiable. Moreschi Deletion! 17:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I added two sources in article. --Yakudza 21:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus read this carefuly: [1]. (Eng.) This reference is already in the article. Good reason to take the word seriously redardless it's origins.
- Keep per dima and Bryndza --Yakudza 19:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is satisfactorily more than a dicdef and does not appear to fall afoul of WP:V. GassyGuy 21:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above. --Riurik (discuss) 23:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment — Needs a huge amount of expansion though, . Perhaps check the Russian or Ukranian wikis to see what the definitions there are? Just barely passes WP:V. I can't say keep or delete on this one really Wizardman 17:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.