Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkidiki Greek
From 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 delete. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Chalkidiki Greek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
DePRODed to bring here. This came up at ANI after a CSD was rejected, but there seems to be some dispute over whether it is actually a dialect, thus notable enough for an inclusion. Much of the content is dubious, according to those much smarter than I am, but I feel that taking a week to discuss and review is best, and if the topic is not notable as I suspect, then deletion would be the right course of action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 23:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete you are right, some of the information is very questionable.--TV Man 13 23:52, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Sigh. Why did you de-prod it, when you don't actually want to keep it? Why do we have to "take a week to discuss" when nobody has so far indicated any interest in keeping it in the first place? This is a waste of my time; now I have to quite unnecessarily restate the whole thing all over again. So, once more: The article as it stood was not just full of amateurishly imprecise descriptions and obvious errors; there is also no sign the topic is a viable, linguistically significant dialectological unit to begin with. It makes sense to have a separate article on "dialect of X" only if X is linguistically separated from neighbouring dialects in a significant way, i.e. if there is a noteworthy linguistic boundary that coincides with the geographical boundaries of X. There is no indication at all that Xalkidiki is a unit in this sense. The only linguistic feature that the article tries to describe in some detail, the vowel reductions, is not characteristic of Xalkidiki as such, but is shared with almost the entirety of the northern and central Greek mainland, and as such it is appropriately treated in Varieties of Modern Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
t there seems to be some dispute over whether it is actually a dialect
Really? Where is this dispute? Me, Taivo and FutPerf have all said it's not noteworthy. Nobody else expressed an opinion. — Lfdder (talk) 01:15, 16 Ma 2013 (UTC) - Delete: non-notable pbp 01:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. "Dispute"? What are you talking about? That's a load of horse manure since not a single person was saying it was a dialect. There's no "dispute" whatsoever. All the actual linguists in the discussion were in perfect agreement--get rid of this turkey. --Taivo (talk) 02:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the expert opinions of several respected editors. There is nothing wrong with debating such matters here at AfD, and it is unfortunate when matters get so heated, when simple adherence to our normal procedures almost always yields the same result. I encourage both sides in this dispute to "chillax" as the kids say, laugh a bit, and move on to productive work improving the encyclopedia. It's a pretty damned good encyclopedia, after all. Let's make it better. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Amateurishness in the writing or organization of the article should not in itself be relevant to deletion, if I understand the spirit of the policies, but there is no indication in the article (or, apparently, anywhere else) that the subject is notably distinguishable from the larger regional dialect, per PFS. Varieties of Modern Greek seems reasonably thorough, and doesn’t mention the peninsula at all. (I guess the local dialect would be included under Macedonian or Thracian, but IANAL.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - the "dispute" is actually very simple - the person who created the article asserted that it was a dialect. Others (including language experts) dispute that. Entirely appropriate that it be raised at ANI, then de-prodded and raised here. The comprehensive consensus so far should ensure it never comes back. Everyone needs to calm down and some need to realise they are fighting an invisible enemy here. Beyond that, those expert opinions are obviously in agreement and that agreement seems to be that this should be deleted. So be it. Stalwart111 06:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Now that the proper procedures have been followed, this article can, legitimately, go. That ANI thread went completely beserk, but the general consensus there was for deletion anyway. Also, people really need to get off the nominator's back, who should be commended for actually following the sensible route of doing what Lfdder should've done at the very beginning. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, and PROD wasn't "proper"? We've got one admin on a power trip, another one swearing at anyone who dares disagree with him, and another one who might very well be suffering from tunnel vision; and they're all friends. It only makes sense that they don't wanna look like complete asses about the whole thing, and so we've got this AfD. Give me a break. — Lfdder (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, because PROD is for non-controversial deletions. Given the furore around this whole event, this is not a non-controversial issue. Also, for all your complaining, this is likely to be closed as a snow delete, which would occur sooner than a PROD-based deletion. Someone needs to drop the stick, and stop abusing everyone who disagrees with you (or doesn't fully agree with you). The ANI thread was a farce; but remember who started it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The controversy wasn't about actually deleting the article; nobody said that it shouldn't be deleted. Stop being dishonest. Right, so I'm to blame for how other people acted 'cos "I started it"? How do you even come up with this rubbish? — Lfdder (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I strongly suggest that you start assuming good faith and stop calling people dishonest. Nobody is going to die if the article stays there one more day. It stayed several years, and nobody died yet.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sure lots of people died in that time. — Lfdder (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The controversy wasn't about actually deleting the article; nobody said that it shouldn't be deleted. Stop being dishonest. Right, so I'm to blame for how other people acted 'cos "I started it"? How do you even come up with this rubbish? — Lfdder (talk) 10:42, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop asserting that there was any controversy over whether or not this article should have been quickly deleted. There was not a single, solitary peep and this was, indeed, a non-controversial deletion. The only controversy was over how Lfdder initially tried to delete it, not over whether or not it should be deleted. The admins trying to justify why they changed the deletion process are trying to make this sound like something more than just them trying to prove to the rest of us "mere mortals" that they have the power to push Wikipedia around. Instead of being honest and saying, "We just want to have a full-blown deletion process because we want to prove to Lfdder that we are in charge", they keep jury rigging excuses such as "there is controversy over whether this is or is not a dialect" (there is none); "the original author thinks it's a dialect" (the original author posted this in 2008 and hasn't edited it since 2010); "there was furor about the deletion" (the only furor had nothing whatsoever to do with whether this should be deleted, but only how). I'm getting sick and tired of of the admins confusing content with process here. Their only argument is over process (and no non-admin cared about how Lfdder deleted the article originally) not over content (absolutely everyone agrees that this article should go). Be honest. The admins want a full-blown, time-consuming process just because they want to flex their muscle. It has zero to do with content or desire to delete the article. Indeed, even with the non-controversial process, there is a straightforward way to object--delete the deletion tag. If someone actually had a content beef, they could have done that. For Dennis Brown to move the deletion process here without any editor whatsoever expressing an objection to the deletion is obviously not a content issue. If you are an uninvolved admin reading this, I apologize for lumping you into the broad group I have an issue with here. But you must understand the frustration that many editors have with admins when something like this occurs. The article was improperly blanked and then speedy removal was requested. I get that. Then a non-controversial deletion tag was placed on the article. That was appropriate. But then when Dennis Brown removed that tag and placed it here because of some trumped-up, invented, nonexistent "content controversy", that was beyond the pale of power trips. And then I read other admins trying to support "their boy" by inventing further content-based comments.... My patience with these two or three power-mad policy-pushers is at the breaking point. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I just went through the policies to see whether I can SNOW close the nomination. Apparently, I can not. There is no criterion for speedy deletion applicable for this article (A7 is not applicable). This means PROD and AfD are the only two options (and they take the same time). Indeed, PROD does not create drama, but if we stop accusing each other in God knows what, AfD would not create drama either, and the article would quietly disappear after a week. I guess we all have more interesting things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:16, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Stop asserting that there was any controversy over whether or not this article should have been quickly deleted. There was not a single, solitary peep and this was, indeed, a non-controversial deletion. The only controversy was over how Lfdder initially tried to delete it, not over whether or not it should be deleted. The admins trying to justify why they changed the deletion process are trying to make this sound like something more than just them trying to prove to the rest of us "mere mortals" that they have the power to push Wikipedia around. Instead of being honest and saying, "We just want to have a full-blown deletion process because we want to prove to Lfdder that we are in charge", they keep jury rigging excuses such as "there is controversy over whether this is or is not a dialect" (there is none); "the original author thinks it's a dialect" (the original author posted this in 2008 and hasn't edited it since 2010); "there was furor about the deletion" (the only furor had nothing whatsoever to do with whether this should be deleted, but only how). I'm getting sick and tired of of the admins confusing content with process here. Their only argument is over process (and no non-admin cared about how Lfdder deleted the article originally) not over content (absolutely everyone agrees that this article should go). Be honest. The admins want a full-blown, time-consuming process just because they want to flex their muscle. It has zero to do with content or desire to delete the article. Indeed, even with the non-controversial process, there is a straightforward way to object--delete the deletion tag. If someone actually had a content beef, they could have done that. For Dennis Brown to move the deletion process here without any editor whatsoever expressing an objection to the deletion is obviously not a content issue. If you are an uninvolved admin reading this, I apologize for lumping you into the broad group I have an issue with here. But you must understand the frustration that many editors have with admins when something like this occurs. The article was improperly blanked and then speedy removal was requested. I get that. Then a non-controversial deletion tag was placed on the article. That was appropriate. But then when Dennis Brown removed that tag and placed it here because of some trumped-up, invented, nonexistent "content controversy", that was beyond the pale of power trips. And then I read other admins trying to support "their boy" by inventing further content-based comments.... My patience with these two or three power-mad policy-pushers is at the breaking point. --Taivo (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing admins of being "power-mad policy-pushers", simply for following the policies we all set out, is absurd. The PROD could easily have been removed by some random IP half-way through the process, and then this AfD would've been started anyway. This AfD is almost generating as much drama as ANI... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It could have been removed, but since not a single solitary editor has posted "keep" here, we won't know will we? Instead the quick "dramaless" fix was short-circuited for no reason whatsoever by Dennis Brown. The vast majority of admins are capable, serious, and judicious, but there are a couple of admins here who seem to be pushing an agenda to make a point that has nothing whatsoever to do with content or controversy. It is no longer about following Wikipedia policy, which could have been followed just as fastidiously with a PROD. Dennis Brown wanted drama and to make his point by removing the PROD for no content reason whatsoever. He got his wish. --Taivo (talk) 19:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've never heard such bullshit in all my life, especially about Dennis Brown, whom happens to be one of our better admins. Like I said, the fact it's here means deletion is guaranteed now in a week; anyone could've wandered in and de-prodded with no reason, and the process would've taken longer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So Dennis Brown brought it here just in case ya? Never mind he lied there was dispute. You're some piece of work. — Lfdder (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, guys, it's not worth getting upset about. It was certainly done in good faith, but still it's a fact that Dennis' deprodding was, if not a mis-use, at least a poor use of process. You don't de-prod an article on the mere assumption that somebody else perhaps might object to a deletion. You de-prod it if and when you object to a deletion. It's exactly the basic principle of the prod process that the proposal is left to stand until somebody actually wishes to challenge it. This kind of "just-in-case" de-prodding undermines the very principle of the process; it wastes everybody's time and as such is harmful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all good, their clique are back to issuing "warnings". In good faith my arse. He's brought it here 'cos his friend said to take it to AfD originally, everybody else be damned. And his excuse is a lie. So take me to ANI, Ymblanter. Bunch of muppets they are. — Lfdder (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I didn't get upset about it not being speedy deleted. Keep the circus going tho, you're doing good. — Lfdder (talk) 11:43, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's all good, their clique are back to issuing "warnings". In good faith my arse. He's brought it here 'cos his friend said to take it to AfD originally, everybody else be damned. And his excuse is a lie. So take me to ANI, Ymblanter. Bunch of muppets they are. — Lfdder (talk) 10:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, guys, it's not worth getting upset about. It was certainly done in good faith, but still it's a fact that Dennis' deprodding was, if not a mis-use, at least a poor use of process. You don't de-prod an article on the mere assumption that somebody else perhaps might object to a deletion. You de-prod it if and when you object to a deletion. It's exactly the basic principle of the prod process that the proposal is left to stand until somebody actually wishes to challenge it. This kind of "just-in-case" de-prodding undermines the very principle of the process; it wastes everybody's time and as such is harmful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So Dennis Brown brought it here just in case ya? Never mind he lied there was dispute. You're some piece of work. — Lfdder (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - WP:IAR and snow close delete already. This is causing too much drama when the outcome is inevitable and agreed upon. WTucker (talk) 13:41, 17 May 2013 (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.