Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Russian Knight


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was DELETE. Linuxbeak | Talk 22:12, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The Russian Knight
Delete. Hopeless. Not to say that "Knight" is a misleading translation of the russian word Vityaz, which is simply "warrior", with connotation "brave, valiant warrior"; see more at Talk:The Russian Knight. mikka (t) 16:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete No reference to published research. DV8 2XL 16:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. Should be a redirect to bogatyr. --Ghirlandajo 19:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete research is valid, only some of it isn't backed up with a source. Also a knight is a warrior, therefore "Vityaz" does mean knight.user talk:Henrin13
 * Your logic is wrong. A samurai is a warrior, so "vityaz" must be a samurai. And your added "source" says nothing to confirm the article. mikka (t) 00:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Create an article Vityaz and redirect this Russian knight there. Google finds >21000 hits on Vityaz (in latin letters), so I assume it is an English word now. I suspected many English-speakers might look into Wikipedia to understand what the word exactly mean (I, been a native Russian speaker, would be interested as well). According to my understanding Vityaz as a professional warrior, usually on a horse, in armour and with proper weapons. He is much more real than Bogatyrs, but still has some folklore connections. Part-time warriors like Bogatyr Mikula Selyaminovich are never refer as Vityazes, despite been valiant and able.
 * While he was a professional warrior, he was not necessarily mounted (at least 30 of them were not :-). Also, wikipedia is not interested in "your understanding". Did you see anything specific on net? As for >21,000 hits (+ 11,000 for vitiaz), the majority of them are various names of things of Russian production (and many of them do fit encyclopedia), so it is not exactly an English word. mikka (t) 06:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Instead of deleting it why don't people who know about the subject of russian knights/warriors, simply improve the article. Because after all there were such a thing as "Russian" Knights and they were different in appearence from the European and other slavic ones.I have seen and read some books (mostly in Russian) which contain information about Russian Knights, which meens that they did exist. Unfortunatly there simply is no name such as "samurai" to describe Russia's particular type of knight. Also, on a side note, I have seen various figurines of Russian Knights posted on the internet and in stores, so obviously people must recognize that they have existed.user talk:Henrin13
 * There were Russian warriors. There were no Russian knights, just as there were no Mongolian knights, no Egyptian knights, no Papua knights. One may call the  figurines of lightly armored Russian warriors "Russian knights" to boost their business, but it is not for encyclopedia. the word "knight" has certain complex associations, not transferrable unto early military of Rus. Please sign your posts. mikka (t) 17:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, then what would everyone say if an article on the Russian Warrior was created? I hope no one would have a problem with that. I just want to educate people on the fact that Russia also had warriors. The article isn't finished by the way. I just started it and was planning to write about certain battles and warriors of Kievan Rus, Novgorod, Muscovy, ect. user talk:Henrin13
 * You will probably run into several troubles with this as well, from other people. I will not go into detail, but there are three problems with this title (not to say about a trifle that the proper style would be Russian warrior). First, a "politically correct" term would be "Early East Slavic", rather than Russian (judging from your intentions). Second, there was no single kind of "warrior"; there were many categories of them, both by social organization and by specialty. Third, all this was changing with time. So I strongly suspect that this title is way too general for your knowledge. Finally, I would not strongly objects against the current article either, but if you excuse me, it is so naively incorrect, primarily by the above three reasons. So I will strongly suggest to use some serious sources, rather than Internet sites. There is so much garbage, lots of Russian pseudohistry, because there is no peer review in the internet, everyone publishes their petty theories, some of which are really crazy, e.g., explanation of the name "Rus" from the meanings of the sounds "r", "u", "s". 00:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. Like I said before if anyone would like to help save this article then feel free to do so. I will start another one, on this same topic in the near futur, if it does get deleted. Which it probably will, at the rate things are going.user talk: Henrin13
 * Delete-I thought Russian nobles in combat were called Boyars. Dudtz 9/29/05 6:04 PM EST
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  No opinion. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have a few problems with this article... most of which have already been enumerated above. It's unsourced and seems to have a large element of original research.  It is also non-verifiable... and the term appears to be a neologism.  That being said, I understand what the author is trying to do here, but as pointed out, is it correct to call this facet of the Slavic military at that time "Knights"? From what I'm reading in this article, they don't appear to bear any real resemblance to what the definition of a knight is.  Even calling it Russian Warrior is problematic because of the problems pointed out above, but also because it is unclear to me how "Russian Warrior" merits distinct mention over say "Polish Warrior" or "Chinese Warrior".  The term is also detached from the time period you are trying to target.  A better route might be to create an article on Early East Slavic Warfare, or something along those lines where you could detail the things that set Early East Slavic military tactics, arms, and armor apart from any other military organizations of the time period... provided you can properly source this of course.  You could also make mention of the bogatyr motif, etc. --Isotope23 17:11, 10 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.