Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Letter Zyu


 * 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 all respect, I must discredit all the "delete" arguments which assume Russian neologisms are inherently unworthy for inclusion on the English Wikipedia (see WP:Systematic bias), and those based on the poor prose quality of the article (because AfD is not cleanup). This leaves us with the notability arguments which all lean towards a "keep" outcome. Deryck C. 00:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Letter Zyu

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pretty much entirely unintelligible, at best it seems to be a random assortment of facts related to a russian phrase Jac 16888  Talk 12:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are authoritative sources in the ru:Буква зю. Article Letter Zyu by 90% is based on articles in scientific journal: http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17316301 - . There are authoritative sources the remaining 10% in the ru:Буква зю. Google Akademik. Буква зю. In the Russian Wikipedia: article was restored in the Russian Wikipedia and visited article on the main page Russian Wikipedia Vyacheslav84 (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even if there are legitimate sources for this topic, this article has not been translated from Russian into English well enough for English-speaking people to understand. And it seems possible to me that this subject could be a phrase which is only meaningful in the Russian language and thus should be covered in English only by Wiktionary -- not by the English Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list. and "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.- http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17316301 - . http://elibrary.ru/title_about.asp?id=8204 is a journal from the list Higher Attestation Commission. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.[1] - аuthoritative sources sufficed to 8.5 Kilobyte. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Category:Russian words and phrases Vyacheslav84 (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are reliable sources cited in the article Letter Zyu, for instance the linked scientific journal: http://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=17316301 This source, combined with the additional listed sources in the Reference section, provide enough evidence to secure the credibility of the article. In regards to some users having difficulty understanding the article, translations and clean-up can be provided in the future to increase the coherency of this article. However, in order for those tasks to be completed, this article needs to kept. This article is a great start and can only continue to be improved in the future. Tayisiya (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * corrected translation Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran  ( t  •  c ) 02:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * ru:Википедия:Значимость it exact (full) analogy Notability and article was restored in the Russian Wikipedia Vyacheslav84 (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that the corresponding article would have been kept in the Russian Wikipedia. Presumably their article was written in clear Russian about a topic which is inherently part of the Russian language. Here, though, we have an article in unclear English (even after improvements) about a topic which is inherently part of a foreign language. I'm not primarily questioning the article's notability here, I'm primarily questioning its comprehensibility. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Аgain - Category:Russian words and phrases A whole category for Russian words and phrases (even with sub-categories) in English Wikipedia. Than bad is this expression compared to the others? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that other stuff exists does not prove that this article ought to exist. Looking at the first two items in Category:Russian words and phrases, for example, afghanka is an article of clothing, and avoska is a type of bag. These are physical objects which can be, and have been, adequately explained in English without the reader needing to know Russian. Phil Bridger, below, says that the article's comprehensibility should be addressed by editing, not deletion. Maybe so, but right now this article is more puzzling than informative. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability - universal rule without exceptions. This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase.. Maybe so, but right now this article is more puzzling than informative. - what exactly is not clear? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Comprehensibility is an issue that should be addressed by editing, not deletion, and a topic being inherently part of a foreign language has no bearing on its suitability for an encyclopedia of the whole world that happens to be written in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * - so accurate. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as unintelligible ("a relatively new idiom, which becomes in the evolution of new values"). No opinion about whether the topic is notable, but we'd need to be able to understand the article in order to be able to ascertain that.  Sandstein   08:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "a relatively new idiom, which becomes in the evolution of new values" - what exactly is not clear? Under the rules of the Wikipedia article is Notability (Notability), but the votes does not matter. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NEO. Seems to be a Russian neologism, not used in English.  Mini  apolis  15:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Category:Russian words and phrases - they are used in English? article Russian language are used in English? Wikipedia is an international project or purely English? Let's not let systemic bias influence us just because this is a article from Ruwiki. Vyacheslav84 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep this is a bit of a ridiculous nomination; we might as well try and delete Mana or any of the other litany of words that are significantly notable in other cultural concepts. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article - it's notable. I would argue this nomination is really an example of En:wiki systemic bias. Wikipedia is for expanding our horizons guys, not restricting them, and just because it's Russian doesn't mean it's not important, though it probably needs cleanup. Would we delete Textspeak? Buckshot06 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2013 (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.