Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gyi


 * 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Gyi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A random honorific particle in Burmese does not need its own Wikipedia page. Ogress smash! 20:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly significant. There are many "random honorific particles" that have Wikipedia articles. See Category:Honorifics. —Мандичка YO 😜 20:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are no sources, so it is not verifiable. Article without any reliable sources should be deleted. Now some sources are added but they are not enough, sources should talk about word "Gyi" not about a person with honorific "Gyi". Another reason is that only one line is supported by sources. Supdiop  (talk)  23:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC) Last updated: 01:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not Wikipedia policy. Articles without RS are not deleted for this reason. —Мандичка YO 😜 00:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not policy, but it's one prominent editing philosophy, one that Jimbo Wales endorses: No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article.


 * Keep - insufficient reason given for deletion, article does not meet any of the criteria for deletion outlined at WP:DEL-REASON. Pishcal  — ♣ 00:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What, Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia doesn't fit? It's an honorific particle in Burmese. If it belongs anywhere it'd be at Burmese names. Ogress smash! 02:07, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't see how you might think it's not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's just as "random" as any other honorific. However, given that the page has very little substantial content, I would support it being merged to Burmese names. Pishcal  — ♣ 02:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it is not suitable for inclusion because it's a Burmese language honorific particle, not an English language one, and it has the sole meaning [honorific+]. Good for Burmese learners, not encyclopedic. I'd perhaps be more impressed if it showed up in citations anywhere, otherwise, like u maung and other such names/titles, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Burmese names. Ogress smash! 07:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia gives NO preference to English or any other language! Language and culture are irrelevant to determining notability, and claiming such a thing is counter to WP:NPOV.  —Мандичка YO 😜 07:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You are confusing bias with "This is the English Wikipedia. Is this term notable for the English Wikipedia?" The latter is a question we ask ourselves constantly when dealing with non-English sources. There's a Chinese word that is used to describe the action you make when grinding traditional ink; it does not appear in the English Wikipedia because it is not notable. Ogress smash! 07:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * To more clearly tie this point in with policy, see WP:NAD. If the only content on this page is a definition and it fulfills the same purpose as another word (such as "sir" in English), then the articles should be merged. In particular, if a single source were uncovered that supported this word's existence, then it could merge with Honorific, which is where we list every other honorific on Wikipedia. WP:NAD specifically states we do not need a new article for every different word that means the same thing. ~ RobTalk 06:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as nom. Ogress smash! 07:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as per and WP:NAD. This may warrant a Wiktionary entry if any evidence of the word's existence can be found, but even with some form of source, WP:NAD would still apply here. ~ RobTalk 08:51, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, why can't Burmese term exist in Wikipedia? This is a place for sharing knowledge, Gyi is notable word in Burmese, you should better support to contribute someone's works rather than want to delete it, please just leave it like that and any Burmese who speaks the language may edit to make better article. It is not actually a name but Title that use to addressing the higher ranking person, example Gogyoke means Major General and Gogyokegyi means Full general, Gyi word can make it change ranking in Burmese, Saya/Sayar for master or teacher, Sayagyi means headmaster in school and Sergeant rank in Army in Myanmar, current Senior General Min Aung Hlaing also has " Gyi" word before his name too, junior person normally doesn't take Gyi title in front name, sometimes they may just address Sayagyi without calling the name like calling Captain in Army without name, unlike like name Gyi Title only may be address as during on services in some cases in official rank addressing. please Keep article.  Myo007   22:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that a notable term with no sources is indistinguishable from a made up term with no sources. This is why WP:V is policy. ~ RobTalk 20:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable enough to warrant a separate encyclopedia article--it's more suitable as a dictionary entry. "Gyi" would hardly qualify as an honorific by itself; the word is simply an adjective that means "big" or "great." In Burmese usage, it can be suffixed to Burmese honorifics, but not used alone as an honorific. -Hintha (t) 06:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The word itself has own meaning, it can stand alone as single word but in Title used as combined, depending on senior rank professional career of the person that's title "Gyi" is added and combined with his/her job's title as honorable or great person, it is like foods without salts without that word also hard to make it high rank person, so it is necessary Title term in Burmese. Even current no.1 highest chief of Myanmar armed Forces need "Gyi" Title as to define high senior general ( e.g: western version equivalent two stars General doesn't have "Gyi" title but it starts from 3 stars to above) Min Aung Hlaing is equal 5 stars rank as "Bogyokehmugyi", Gyi title makes a lot different to differentiate between in Burmese style from junior official person to Senior, junior person normally doesn't have " Gyi" title and is is widely used many cases in Myanmar cultures. e.g: If a foreigner want to see a big doctor such as Specialist or higher degree doctor then he needs to say "Sayawongyi" but if he says "Sayawon" then it may be refer as normal MBBS doctor, that's much different even for doctor Titles. yes, it combined with front words phrase as word Gyi word place the back word in the meantime the front Title may be changing another terms to make different job careers of persons but "Gyi" word keep still and doesn't change to make high rank or great person. Why words combined? because it is Style, just Burmese Style of usages, like some books may start from back to front or some written from right to left but we can't against them because it is their styles and own cultures. "Gyi" term can become both noun in alone and/or also adjective when front words combined but it is really need for Burmese and without "Gyi" title it will have problem in define in society to ranking persons therefore it is too important, in Kingdom era was also "Sitthugyi" as General of armed forces, current era Thagyi as no.1 head of Village, ship, SayadawGyi -the most or much senior monk( many cases there is only one person who is head leader of whole monasteries no matter there are many normal monks Sayadaws there as 100 or 200 numbers inside, some centres have few SayadawGyi. Like, it may be better if we can live without Oxygen air but we have to breath because we need it. "Gyi" Title is combined with front job titles but we need it. Combined as last words in Burmese " Style Title" because one would be mistaken with another who is actual chief/ in-charge/ no.1 of organizations, armed forces, religious teams, authorities, leaders, politics, high authorities. Again, if used "Gyi" alone as noun for front of high ranking titles then you may not know what his specialty job to recognize it and combined Title for that is in "Burmese style" but without also can't, it is notable enough for widely use well-known in Myanmar so we should keep on Wiki. Myo007  20:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You already noted that your stance was a Keep above. Please do not comment more than once on a nomination listing Keep/Delete, because this can makes it more difficult to determine what the consensus is. If you have additional comments, you're certainly welcome to make them, but please do so without prefacing your statement with Keep/Delete. Thanks. ~ RobTalk 11:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You've noted why the word is a good dictionary entry, but not why it's worthy of a separate encyclopedia entry. Quoting from WP:NAD, "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing ... are duplicate articles that should be merged." Burmese honorifics is about the same thing, so it should be merged (which it already is). Additionally, WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" in sources. All sources for this article mention it briefly at best, with no substantial coverage. I believe you're misunderstanding the policies, as you're saying things that are perfectly true, but do not support this article's inclusion in the wiki based on WP:NAD and WP:GNG. ~ RobTalk 11:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just edited now. Myo007  21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - not notable enough to warrant a separate encyclopedia article … … merge any content with Burmese names.Pincrete (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Gyi doesn't equally same on all usages depend on combinations with front Title words such as Gyi can means Great, Greater and Greatest. The term is widely use so can't put Gyi under simple Burmese names as in one place and Merge together, example in General level, Bogyokehmugyi ( Senior General/ 5 Star General in West) makes supreme level Gyi as Greatest/ highest degree as no. 1 in Myanmar Armed forces when Sayagyi for Sergent rank only would take as Great term, when in Bogyi ( Captain ) or Bomugyi  ( Colonel) as Greater degree but not highest yet. The term is widely use for noble term in Burma as many commons so it should keep in wiki. By making Gyi as all same simple word "Great" then it make like Sergent level and Supreme level Senior General make like equal. Gyi term really not same in all places but depend. it had been widely use in Titles such as in General, Abbot and even in President as "Thamatagyi" then it is notable enough to keep as since they are notable persons that famous in Burma. Myo007   17:18, 03 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are foreign learners who may wish to learn Burmese and tourists who visiting Myanmar, why shouldn't have share terms and knowledge on Wiki because of English site? English site doesn't mean belong to English term only otherwise should share in Burmese wiki only hence there is no need for that since Burmese people speak that language and know their own term already but this sharing is for foreigners, shouldn't they know about Burma, cultures, their terms and usages? and yet not written in Burmese script characters mainly in English site so it doesn't against the standard. There are many other languages terms over Wikipedia too, so this too should keep, should share, should let the knowledge goes. Even top notable persons such as Burmese President Thein Sein and Senior General Min Aung Hlaing are addressed as with Gyi word as before name as with, "Thamatagyi" U Thein Sein and " Bogyokehmugyi"  Min Aung Hlaing then why shouldn't let world know for what Gyi title in Burmese stand for? Even if country's head of State in Myanmar and commander-in-chief of Armed Forces take term Gyi  and they are not ordinary men then what make you think Gyi not notable for? "Encyclopaedia is for sharing knowledge . if there one particular article example Aung San then other contributors will re-write with other languages too no matter article started in main English base link . Gyi word is made really big thing in Burmese even for Ambassador Thanamatgyi, Minister wongyi and Prime Minister , if you want to see whether big boss or junior person that word  Gyi could determine, it can be senior, higher senior or the most senior person such as supreme Leader. Some words in Wiki are really useful, interesting and important to know no matter other language based. Many Contributors gave their precious times and efforts to share knowledge in Wiki to let people know out of their good soles, they have other things to do in lives and so why want to destroy it for good works and efforts .  "works wasted if get destroyed ", " Contributors help the people".  Can we Burmese communities help Wikipedia too? Again names, Title, Addressing and honorable terms are not same, Gyi Title is not actually a simple Burmese term if put it before the name, name place at the back but Title put at the front, in Burmese depends where you place the word meaning may different.Title is not a name so can't really put under Burmese names example even a Senior monk if quit from Monkhood then Gyi title may be lost. when King Bayingyi was abdicated then Gyi Title may be lost. For foreign learners "widely use Burmese terms should have in Wikipedia." Myo007   17:29, 03 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Point out that there are Indian honorific terms Title: Maharaja and raja have as in separated articles in wiki and it has similar term like Maharaza in Burmese, both Maha= Great and Pali influenced raza=king words have in Burmese, also there Arab honorific terms Sharif, Sultan, Emir are allowed to have in wiki too. The term Uparaja also exist in Burmese stories, the last General of Burmese Army before British colony was Sitthugyi (commander-in-chief) Maha Bandoola. The term Gyi is still on widely using in Burmese nowadays and also officials like Army ranks and insignia of Burma as well and we should keep the significant usages of Burmese in wiki.  Myo007   06:58, 03 July 2015 (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.