Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanjivellam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. MBisanz talk 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kanjivellam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Orphaned article consisting of a one-sentence definition of a cooking by-product (water drained from cooked rice) - otherwise non-notable Geoff T C 19:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I did an extensive search of Internet sources, and significant book-based searches. There are only 80 hits at Google, and very few mentions of this "boiled rice-water" in any reliable source that I can find. Those that do happen to mention it never provide any more information than what is already in the article. Unless someone finds non-English-language sources, this does not meet our general notability guideline. Overall, I think that straight deletion is the right choice; it's possible that it could be redirected to Gruel
or transwikied to Wiktionary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose transwiki to Wiktionary: It's not an English term, so it doesn't belong in the English Wiktionary. There doesn't appear to be a Wiktionary for Malayam. Transwikiing as a definition is therefore inappropriate. (There is a Malayam Wikipedia, but can't simply be copied into it (wrong language) and as a dicdef, it would probably have the same notability problem there. Besides, there is no information in this article that the average Malayam speaker does not already know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- See below; it seems not to be the case that English Wiktionary is for English words only.--Kotniski (talk) 09:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose transwiki to Wiktionary: It's not an English term, so it doesn't belong in the English Wiktionary. There doesn't appear to be a Wiktionary for Malayam. Transwikiing as a definition is therefore inappropriate. (There is a Malayam Wikipedia, but can't simply be copied into it (wrong language) and as a dicdef, it would probably have the same notability problem there. Besides, there is no information in this article that the average Malayam speaker does not already know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a well known form of food as far as I know in Kerala. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 00:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect and merge to Gruel. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 20:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep/merge/wiktionarize. The information seems accurate, potentially sourceable and potentially of use to someone searching for information in an encyclopedia. This is a good example of the phenomenon being discussed at WT:AFD at the moment (I'm only here, obviously, because this was chosen as a randon example in that discussion). Deletion should be the last resort, not the first. "I haven't heard of this" or "I can't find any sources in Google" is not a reason to rush to judgement and vote to delete something. Sources (not necessarily on the Internet) will be found on this, the article will be expanded, or possibly merged with another one - all in good time. Meanwhile we provide a snippet of information that someone might be looking for, thus making the encyclopedia that little bit better. If you must get rid of it, at least take it to wiktionary so the info is still reachable.--Kotniski (talk) 08:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI kanjivellam is not an English word, but used only in Malayalam. Are we going to make an entry of every word in other languages into Wikipedia? At best this can redirect to Gruel with a small section on kanjivellam. This is surely not something for an encyclopedia. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it has to be an entry (i.e. an article), but we must avoid this reflex of saying "this doesn't deserve an article, therefore the information presently here must simply be deleted." First we should look at ways of merging it with something else (like you suggest); if there is no article to merge it with now, there may be in the future. This word clearly is occasionally used in English, as Google shows, so it's not "just" a random foreign word. Wiktionary is perhaps the best place for it, but by voting simply "delete" you don't ensure even that.--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see your point. Things like this certainly depends on the subject in question. For example, a while there was this article called Parisal. A parisal is a Tamil word for the type of coracle in Southern India. Then there was another article called Theppa was also made. Both mean the same, but in different languages. A merger was proposed and in the end we have this article Indian coracles where both Parisal and Theppa redirect to. Now to explain in context, both the words parisal (alternate spelling - parical) and theppa are used in some books and also in a few peer reviewed journals. If we are to have each of them seperate we will soon be redundatopedia. As I said I clearly see your point. There needs to be a clear guideline on what non-English words or terms be included in English language Wikipedia. I change my vote to redirect rather than delete. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 20:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kotniski, as you know full well, I did rather more than just count the number of Google hits. I also challenge your characterization of those pages, however: Half or more of them were Wikipedia mirrors or lists of alphabetic words. And there were only 80 hits in the first place.
- But here's the problem for you: if you want to keep it, WP:BURDEN says that you've got to provide a reliable source. So where's your reliable source? Keeping an article for which we reasonably believe it to be impossible to find any reliable sources at all violates Wikipedia's policies. That's what that "last resort" language is all about: when you really can't, after a long search, actually find proof of notability, or even enough informal information to make the "article" longer than a two-sentence dictionary definition, then you're supposed to delete it, not hold it up as a WP:POINTy example of these horrible deletionist people that actually think articles should comply with the notability policy.
- There is absolutely no reason to think that this word has any notability in English, or even that the idea has any notability that isn't already adequately covered at Gruel. A "merge" looks a heck of lot like a simple redirect to Gruel, since this word is just a foreign-language term for thin rice gruel made with water, and rice gruel made with water is already listed among the possibilities named in the first sentence of Gruel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that none of us really know anything about this topic (apologies to anyone who does) and we are not in a position to assess whether "it's impossible to find a reliable source". Almost certainly there are reliable sources for this information somewhere, since your searching turned up informal sources that confirmed its accuracy (you even added to it on the basis of what you found, I think). And if we automatically deleted all information that wasn't explicitly sourced yet, we would lose about 95% of Wikipedia. But because this is a separate page rather than a statement within a page, people's minds go into destruction mode and they starting voting delete in big bold letters, without considering how to preserve the information. (English wiktionary isn't only for English words, surely?) Quote from Wiktionary: "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English" (my emphasis).--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't believe that the English Wikipedia wants Malayam words, but if you think so, then why haven't you created a page at Wiktionary for it? The closing admin has no responsibility to do any such thing: his/her sole responsibility is to delete this if it does not comply with the English Wikipedia's notability policies. (That's the only reason that admins close: non-admins can't delete articles.) If the decision is that an article meets the notability guideline, then the admin responsibility stops with merely noting that fact. Admins do not have a responsibility to implement your preference -- even if we had a consensus that this word met the notability requirements (which we do not, because it does not). Anything other than deleting the article is your job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing is that none of us really know anything about this topic (apologies to anyone who does) and we are not in a position to assess whether "it's impossible to find a reliable source". Almost certainly there are reliable sources for this information somewhere, since your searching turned up informal sources that confirmed its accuracy (you even added to it on the basis of what you found, I think). And if we automatically deleted all information that wasn't explicitly sourced yet, we would lose about 95% of Wikipedia. But because this is a separate page rather than a statement within a page, people's minds go into destruction mode and they starting voting delete in big bold letters, without considering how to preserve the information. (English wiktionary isn't only for English words, surely?) Quote from Wiktionary: "This is the English Wiktionary: it aims to describe all words of all languages using definitions and descriptions in English" (my emphasis).--Kotniski (talk) 09:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do see your point. Things like this certainly depends on the subject in question. For example, a while there was this article called Parisal. A parisal is a Tamil word for the type of coracle in Southern India. Then there was another article called Theppa was also made. Both mean the same, but in different languages. A merger was proposed and in the end we have this article Indian coracles where both Parisal and Theppa redirect to. Now to explain in context, both the words parisal (alternate spelling - parical) and theppa are used in some books and also in a few peer reviewed journals. If we are to have each of them seperate we will soon be redundatopedia. As I said I clearly see your point. There needs to be a clear guideline on what non-English words or terms be included in English language Wikipedia. I change my vote to redirect rather than delete. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 20:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying it has to be an entry (i.e. an article), but we must avoid this reflex of saying "this doesn't deserve an article, therefore the information presently here must simply be deleted." First we should look at ways of merging it with something else (like you suggest); if there is no article to merge it with now, there may be in the future. This word clearly is occasionally used in English, as Google shows, so it's not "just" a random foreign word. Wiktionary is perhaps the best place for it, but by voting simply "delete" you don't ensure even that.--Kotniski (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. --Geoff T C 22:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Malayalam word not used in any other language. Tintin 10:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read any of the above? By delete, do you mean move to wiktionary? Because if everyone just writes delete, an admin will just come along and delete it. If we write transwiki or something like that, then there's a hope that whoever closes this discussion will ensure that the information is moved to wiktionary or elsewhere before deleting it from this page. I hope everyone gets my (well originally not my) point about deletion being a last resort; this is really a continuation of the discussion at WT:AFD, it's not that I care greatly about this specific word, but it's the principle that matters.--Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. Had just glanced through it. After going through it, still don't have an opinion on moving to wiktionary, mainly because I have hardly ever visited wiktionary and know little about it. But I am a native speaker of Malayalam and my opinion was based on that. But on second thoughts, I am beginning to feel that Kanji should have an article on its own with Kanjivellam a redirect to it, or it could be a redirect to Congee#Indian which talks about the same thing.
- Re WhatamIdoing's comment, if you search for kanji & kerala you'll have a lot of relevant hints. Tintin 12:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per User:Kotniski, I added reliable source (book) to article, some of the Google hits indicate that this rice water has "therapeutic" (ahem) qualities, so could be usefull elswhere in Wiki. I would say though it is pretentious to call the article a "food stub". Power.corrupts (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your 'reliable source' is a history book about a Catholic settlement in India, and the sole mention of the subject is in this phrase about an ascetic: "...he was satisfied with mere boiled rice-water (kanjivellam)." This really does not qualify as a reliable source for the purpose of this article, and it definitely does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability, which is what a subject must do to have an article at Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Transwiki no claim of notability or importance in Malayalam cuisine; belongs at Wiktionary. in response to the comment near the top about how this "doesn't belong on English Wiktionary"..... there is no English Wiktionary. Wiktionary is one project, holding as many languages as people want to put on it. Politizer talk/contribs 23:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - appears to be similar to congee. Bearian (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Similar to congee in the sense that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, or in the sense that Congee lists five references, three external links, and a WikiCookbook source, whereas a diligent search for reliable sources for Kanjivellam has produced zero sources that contain more information than a very brief dictionary definition (and only two [a press release and a history book that may qualify as self-published] that do even so much)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.