Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oikema


 * 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 (was) a not very cleverly disguised attack page and "hoax" or "vandalism" are valid rationales. "Meaningless drivel", if it isn't covered elsewhere, easily falls under WP:IAR. It has been pointed out by participants in this discussion that even if it weren't what it was, it's useless, here or elsewhere. So, as a final closing rationale I'd like to cite WP:SNOW. Basic argument and content are preserved externally; there is no reason to keep this AfD running.. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oikema

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Completely confused OR essay about a Greek word; completely wrong in large parts, confusing real-world info with fictional elements in others. If pared down to what little in this page is actually correct, we'd be left with a mere dictionary definition whose only place could be at wiktionary. But there's really nothing in this page as it stands now that is even worth being used as a starting point for further development. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've done the stubbing back now; the original horrible version can be seen here: . But, as I said, even this version is a candidate for transwiki to wiktionary at best. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whats the problem exactly? I am explaining what the word means and covers. How can people know what a "new" word is if they don't get it explained though use so I need to explain it by pointing to literature, art etc. And actually the word does man something in greek. You wrote it was an old anvient word. It is used today also. So that was wrong indeed. Please give me a few hints here and I shall gladly fix it unless it is going to be delete anyway whatever happens. Lets see if I/we can fix this and please let us know what more information you need entered. It is like explainign what a "chair" is for the first time so please help more than you delete. Delete is easy, right. CU all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesluxley (talk • contribs) 09:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it starts with the obviously false claim that "οἰκήματι" isn't a single word in Greek (it is, as anyone with a shattering of Greek knows). It goes downhill from there. It ends with the equally bizarre inclusion of a paragraph about a modern brothel in Salzburg, which has nothing at all to do with the topic of the article. The main problem though is that you couldn't make up your mind about what the topic of the article is actually supposed to be: is it about all things that were called "oikēma"? (i.e. including all sorts of different buildings, prison cells, stables etc.?) Or is it specifically about the "brothel" sense? If the former, what do the places in Salzburg or "building Z" at Kerameikos have to do with it? If the latter, what does Acts 12:7 have to do with it? And why are these different stories all mixed into one, e.g. within the "theology" section? What about that bizarre claim that the reference to the prison cell in Acts 12:7 was actually meant to refer to a brothel? Is that your own speculation? This is unsalvageable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I couldn't figure out at first what the author of this page was driving at, but now he's linked to his homepage which makes it all clear. It's all so very simple, really. According to the bible, St. Peter once was in prison. The word used for "prison cell" in ancient Greek happens to be the same that was also used for cells of brothels. Therefore, St. Peter really wasn't in a prison but in a brothel. Therefore, (gasp!) the Vatican is a brothel! Yes, the Catholic Church is really all about sex and money! Wikipedia must prove the truth! – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:26, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad you finally understood the context. It does take a little time to read and understand. For some it is a process taking days or even weeks. Oikema is used in architecture to describe a brothel. So far so good? Oikema is used in the Bible only once in Acts 12:7 as Oikemati οἰκήματι which is a nonsense word but in fact two words namely Greek: οἰκήμα τι meaning what house. Do you follow this so far? The new added content someone added is totally nonsense also. You link to Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon showing the word οἰκ-ήμα which does absolutely not exists except in that website. οἰκ-ήμα translates to Greek: "Rev-ima" and has no meaning whatsoever. I search high and low and it is only to be found at that university site. Must be made up because it simply does not exist. I shall leave the current entry for a while and then enter the real meaning of the word and what is actually is related to Acts 12:7. I am aware of the attempt to delete and spoil and obstruct this entry for Oikema. I can also gasp but for other reasons namely the fact that your new entry is utterly nonsense and this can be proven. I am waiting for a prompt reply and shall reedit the nonsense someone entered to get the facts back. There are many lies and someone just made more by entering a link as proof for the word οἰκήμα being οἰκ-ήμα which is a madeup word which absolutely does not exist. You also deleted (naturally) everything related to Oikema being used in architecture describing a brothel. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesluxley (talk • contribs) 13:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, irrespective of the version. The stub is a foreign-language dictionary definition, and belongs ... well, somewhere else.  Probably at Wiktionary, but not here, and doubly so.  The longer version is a novel synthesis entirely unsupported by reliable sources, and to the extent that it surmises that the Liberation of Saint Peter actually involved Peter's trip to a brothel, also fails WP:FRINGE. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This doesn't belong either here or at Wiktionary. It's sheer drivel, apart from the part that gives a dictionary definition, but doesn't spell the word in the correct alphabet as Wiktionary demands.  For the sake of anyone reading this who doesn't know their New Testament Greek, here's the fault in the foundation of this entire tottering edifice of tripe: "οίκημα" is an ordinary (NT) Greek word, that the English Wiktionary is missing, like many of the words on wikt:Appendix:Greek word lists/3.  (The Greek Wiktionary has "οίκημα" from Modern Greek.)  It is a neuter noun in the third declension, and as you can see from wikt:Appendix:Ancient Greek third declension that means that its dative is "οἰκήματι".  The dative follows the preposition "ἐν", and that is what one finds in Acts 12:7 where both "οἰκήματι" and indeed the definite article "τῷ" preceding it (per simple agreement) are both dative.  This should have been a clue. This whole load of old baloney is made up by one person, based upon a lack of that one piece of information and any clue whatsoever about Greek, put on a WWW site, and then put into Wikipedia by that same person in violation of our no original research policy.  Not only is it a novel hypothesis that doesn't exist anywhere outwith its creator; but it is also a novel hypothesis that is verifiably wrong per the sources cited.  See where Lidell &amp; Scott's dictionary says "οἴκ-ημα, ατος, τό" at the top?  That's how that particular lexicon &mdash; and indeed a lot of Greek lexica ("λεξικά": second declension, neuter nominative plural) &mdash; indicates the declension that applies, by giving the nominative singular ("οἴκημα"), the suffix for the genitive singular ("-ατος") because the full stem of a third declension noun ("οἴκηματ-" in this case) isn't present in the nominative singular, and the form of the nominative singular definite article for the noun ("τό") to indicate the gender. We can redirect to Claude Nicolas Ledoux when someone decides to actually mention the building that he designed by this name in that article.  But this pile of witless waffle we can do entirely without.  Wiktionary doesn't need this, could do better than this from a standing start, and probably will.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The original version was pure nonsensical OR. And though I don't know any Greek, I'm happy to go with Uncle G's assessment that there's nothing salvageable here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just delete, no transwiki. Wiktionary is not Wikipedia's trashcan, and has started its own entry on this word at οἴκημα. Angr (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G. I like "witless waffle" easily as good as the Fourth Doctors "bafflegap" MarnetteD | Talk 22:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * "Tottering edifice of tripe" is good too, though "tottering tower of tripe" would have been better. Angr (talk) 12:19, 21 August 2012 (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.