Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mechutan


 * 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. The "article" is nothing more than a translation and is suited for a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. seicer &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  00:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mechutan

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as per WP:DICT. The article appears to be a straight translation of an Aramaic word, without any of the usual material that would distinguish an encyclopedia entry from a dictionary. Prod was contested. RayAYang (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what I responded:


 * Hi RayaYang, This word belongs to a group of words used by English speaking Jews; and this term is not just a word, but it represents a certain meaning when used. Perhaps it needs to be expanded to include its bigger meaning, but I just started it, and I'm sure eventually, someone will eloborate on it. It belongs to a group of (Category:Hebrew words and phrases) and (Category:Yiddish words and phrases), which has similiar words like: frum, Tzadik, Gadol, Da'as Torah, Posek, Baal teshuva, Kanai (Judaism), Tchotchke, etc. There are thousands of such words/terms in Wikipedia. I understand your concern and thanks for raising it. Itzse (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I already explained it above. If you think that "this" word/term merits deletion more then all the words of its category, then please look at all those words and explain the difference. Itzse (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Itzse: That something else also exists is not a good reason to keep something on Wikipedia. If the term has a cultural significance and history supported by reliable sources, then it may be viable as an encyclopedia entry. However, that it has a meaning when used does not distinguish it from every other word. RayAYang (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, I've already told you that this word/term is similar to the other words/terms in that category. Do what you want, as I have no time or will to fight you. At the bare minimum, please ask some of the Jewish editors who use this term and they'll explain it to you. It is unfortunate that many here are too busy frustrating those who are contributing, and keep putting stumbling blocks in front of them instead of helping them. It looks to me that this isn't your language, so why take on this subject, when those who are expert in the English/Hebrew/Yiddish language are better equipped to decide if it should exist or not? I have no time to engage you on this, my time is precious; so do as you like. Itzse (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   -- RayAYang (talk) 23:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's a foreign language dictionary definition -- Whpq (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Would you suggest that all such words be deleted? If yes, then I'll proceed in tagging a few hundred articles for deletion (maybe someone will wake up). Meanwhile we've only heard from two people who have never heard this word, and it's foreign to them. Frankly, I consider this unwarranted tagging, as harassment. Itzse (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply User:RayAYang has already answered this question earlier on. If you can establish that this is much more than just a foreign word, then please do so with reliable sources writing about "Mechutan".  I can be persuaded, but pointing to other articles isn't the way to do it.  Documentation with reliable sources is however much more persuasive. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply How do you want me to persuade you? I've already written that it’s a term. A red link already existed before I got here, which says that someone else, when editing thought that this word needed to be a link. Look, both of you don't speak Hebrew/Aramaic/Yiddish, so you don't use it in your every day vocabulary. I think a suggestion to delete a word like this should come from someone who "knows" this word. This is going beyond "patrolling"; I think it falls in the category of "prowling". I don't think that the burden should be on me to "prove" that this word belongs in Wikipedia; I think it is the other way around, that someone who wants to delete it should do his research and then delete it. I have no time for this. I used to be a heavy contributor, but nowadays I occasionally get on and make some edits. It is wrong to request, that I should waste my time defending my edits. Again, a suggestion to delete such a word should only come from someone who knows this word; otherwise it is climbing on a straight wall. Frustrated, and for no good reason. Itzse (talk) 21:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply The burden of proof lies with the contributor. There is no patrolling or prowling going on here beyond reviewing articles that have been submitted for deletion.  AFD is a discussion about the merits of an article.  If as you claim, there is merit to this article, then you need to put forth the evidence.  The article as it is currently written is very much a dicitonary definiton.  I've looked for sourcing that might indicate it is more than that, but found none.  And in the disussion so far, no evidence has been offered that it is more than a dicitonary defintion. -- Whpq (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply, I disagree with you as to who has to prove it. We have a major disagreement about this. Let me ask you; should I tag all similar articles for deletion, and get those editors to sweat it out to prove why those articles should exist? I believe WP should be a friendly place and patrolling should be discouraged, let alone glorified. When someone has built a house, the building inspector shouldn't come and ask him to tear down the house unless he can prove that it's sound, and should have been put up in the first place. Remember, so far we haven't heard from anyone expert here and on the language. Itzse (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply - You can disagree about the burtden of proof, but an administrator reviewing this discussion will take those factors into consideration. As for the other articles, if you feel that they meet the criteria for deletion, then you may tag them for deletion, but it seems to me that you would be doing it just to make a point, which isn't a good idea.  -- Whpq (talk) 22:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply, Correct, I shoudn't do it because doing it will be, just making a point. But that point is exactly the point that needs to be made, which is; why is this article any different from hundreds of similar articles? Just because someone found this article, doesn't make it any different, and if we need to delete this article, then why shouldn't we delete hundreds of similar ones?


 * delete per WP:DICT. Absence of references is telling; indeed it isn't clear what sort of references could possibly be used for a page like this.  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - all we have is assertion that the term is significant, but there's nothing in the article, or this discussion, that backs up that assertion. All words have "a certain meaning when used". Unless this word describes something which is a significant or notable concept (and it sure doesn't sound like it does) then the article is purely a dictionary definition and not encyclopedic. MadScot666 (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And, as to the "other stuff exists", I just scannd the Posek article. It doesn't just offer a definition but an explanation and puts the term into cultural context - exactly what the current article does not (and, I suspect, never can) do.MadScot666 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. It does not seem to me that this term represents a distinctly Jewish concept. --Eliyak T · C 18:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   —Eliyak T · C 18:22, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the term does not represent a jewish concept, or a halachic concept, or even a cultural concept. There is no history or development of the term, or anything else which can be stated in the article that isn't already stated.  Jon513 (talk) 18:34, 14 September 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.