Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bagh (word)


 * 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 Keep. With regard to Bagh (garden), per WP:SNOW and withdrawal of the original nomination. As to the redirect, that isn't an AfD matter, and belongs instead at WP:RFD. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bagh (word)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Dictionary definition. The article has already been moved to Wiktionary. Corvus cornix talk  22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per WP:DICTDEF, this should be deleted.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment to closer During the discussion, a user moved bagh (word) to bagh (garden) and fleshed out the article considerably from a dictdef to something a bit more than that. My delete is only in relation to the bagh (word) article in both its dictdef and now its redirect form.   My debate point is that bagh (word) should not exist as either an aricle or a redirect but that bagh (garden) in its expanded form should be kept.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nomination. Renee (talk) 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:DICTDEF X Marx The Spot (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Those who advocate deletion of this entry should attempt to name one dictionary (an English dictionary preferably, however failing that a dictionary in one of the following languages will be acceptable: Dutch, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Portuguese and Swedish) in which the word Bāgh is defined. It is certain that this word is not defined in OED (3rd edition), SOED (5th edition), Chambers and Mirriam Webster. A search with the English Google will show that about 1,600,000 references are made to this word on the Internet and to my best knowledge no site actually defines this word. Naturally, there might be some sites giving such bland definition as Garden, but my search prior to writing the entry on Bāgh showed that there is nothing, or nothing worthwhile (since I could not have possibly inspected all the above-mentioned 1,600,000 sites), available on the Internet that would satisfy the curiosity of someone looking for a proper definition of this word. I should add that the Wikipedia entry on Bāgh has been on the Internet since 25 March, so that it is possible that in the meantime some sites may have already copied the contents of the Wikipeda entry. The situation being so dire as regards the word Bāgh, is it warranted to delete the present Wikipedia entry? In my opinion, such a deletion amounts to a cultural vandalism of the first order. --BF 01:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.  There is a big difference.  The definition of words as you describe are more than welcome at the sister project Wikitionary. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 05:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The Encyclopedia Iranica has an article describing the whole history of this concept.  [].  If it is in a professional Encyclopedia, why should it not have an entry in Wikipedia?  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then make it more than a definition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, we should just move it to Bagh. Actually this should be main article on Bagh, the rest of the articles should be (see other uses). So I think instead of deletion, that is a better suggestion.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete; definitions of words do WP:NOT belong on Wikipedia. Period. The author of the article makes it clear that it's purely a definition. QED.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment': Bagh (garden) is, while not a great article, encyclopedic and hopefully improvable. Bagh (word) still needs to be deleted, redirect or not.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be consistent in your reasoning: One cannot make something "more than a definition" if that something is deleted first. Moreover, the contents of the present version of the entry is far more than a definition. Have you read the entry, if I may ask? Finally, it cannot be my task only to make this entry complete; like any other Wikipedia entry, also this entry will have to grow through the contributions of other members of the community who feel qualified for the task. --BF 01:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can make it more than a definition when you're first writing it. Nothing in the article right now covers anything more than a good dictionary would. It's not everyone else's responsibility to clean up after you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * comment We can change the entry from Bagh (word) to just "Bagh". The meaning/definition of the word is only part of entry.  I think that is what some users might have an issue with.  Else Bagh is a perfect Encyclopedic concept.  See my comments above.  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about this possibility myself when I was considering to create the entry. However, the problem is that there is already a Wikipedia entry whose name is "Bagh" (see Bagh). Using "Bāgh" as the name of the entry has its own problems: most people (in particular those who view pages from outside) do not know how to type "ā" into the search boxes of their browsers (I myself am one of them) so that they will never succeed in finding the entry. Interestingly, the search engine of Encyclopaedia Iranica, to which you referred earlier, does not return "Bāgh" on typing "Bagh" in the field of its own search engine! --BF 02:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually I think the onus is on those who would argue for the retention of this article as to why we should set WP:DICTDEF aside in this case. X Marx The Spot (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I said already in my first contribution to this page: give me the name of a dictionary (concerning the languages that I have explicitly mentioned) that defines this word. In that case I shall also call it a dictionary word and you may then proceed with removing the entry. --BF 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear Behnam. I think the best suggestion is to rename this article to Bagh and then add the dictionary definition of Bagh to Wikidictionary.   Also when expanding this article per Iranica probably, you can also give a definition in the introduction.  I think the above users thought the article belongs to wikidictionary.  So I think everyone can work with this suggestion?  --alidoostzadeh (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From the nomination The article has already been moved to Wiktionary. X Marx The Spot (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay then this article should be moved to Bagh. --alidoostzadeh (talk) 03:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep and move to Bagh. This article has the same relevancy as this, it is used as determination of a places such as Kara-bagh. It has potential to be improved and expended. VartanM (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please consult what I wrote above on the existence of the Wikipedia entry Bagh. --BF 03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Replace page with wi (I always prefer including that for people who don't know what Wiktionary is). It's a dicdef. Actually, so is the Iranica link. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Alternatively it can be moved to Wiktionary, but I don't think this needs to be deleted. If there's already a wiktionary article with that name, then it can be linked to it. But the info is useful and should be retained. Grandmaster (talk) 05:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Relevant. Nokhodi (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand per VartanM. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep It's possible to expand this article far beyond the status of "dictionary definition". The article of encyclopedia Iranica shows that, it's on a variety of subjects, well documented, it's an encyclopedia article. So WP:NOT doesn't apply here, no reason to delete. Cenarium  Talk 13:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you care to explain how an article which has (word) in its title and deals with nothing but the definition and etymology of the word "bagh" can be expanded upon BEYOND just its definition and etymology and still be relevant to the title of "(word)"? Keep in mind when you answer this that there are already several articles regarding the concept of "bagh" as well, such as bagh (garden). Also, could you care to explain how an article that has (word) in the title and deals with nothing but the definition and etymology of the word is somehow excused from WP:NOT?  I simply do not understand your argument as it makes no sense at all to me.  -- ShinmaWa(talk) 20:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. User:Tahmasp has demonstrated that this is an encyclopedic subject which should have an article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and suggest early close. The page now redirects to Bagh (garden), which seems a reasonably well fleshed out about a cultural variant on a kind of formal garden.  The actual nominated page is a redirect, and the new page both now goes well beyond being a "mere definition" and shows potential for expansion in any case.  - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that this is a good fix, to be honest. The redirect of Bagh (word), which implies an article about the WORD "Bagh" (i.e. its etymology) is not really related to the CONCEPT of a Bagh garden.   This would be a candidate ripe to go straight to WP:RFD for that very reason.   This "fix" is sloppy at best and inappropriate at worst.  A better solution, in my mind, is to redirect everything that currently points to Bagh (word) (there's only a handful) to Bagh (garden) or the Bagh DAB and delete the useless Bagh (word) redirect altogether. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 19:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dear ShinmaWa, I think I have by now corrected all the references to "Bagh (word)" --- this was relatively easy, since most, if not all, of those references had been made by me and I knew where to look for them. Kind regards, --BF 20:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Based on the changes made to this article, I would be willing to withdraw the nomination.  Corvus cornix  talk  02:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To Prosfilaes: What have you got against the entry? You first vote strong detete, then when people overwhelmingly support the preservation of the entry, you go and delete 2/3 of its contents on account of a dubious argument!!! Can't you bring up respect for the opinion of others? Or is it something that you have against knowledge? Please keep your hands off the entry and work on subjects that might interest you. --BF 03:01, 16 April 2008 (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.