Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turkish cap
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 delete. Thanks to Mttll and Nedim Ardoğa for your input. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Turkish cap (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No sources for the article and more importantly, no sources in the Internet in general that indicate there is a specific object such as "Turkish cap", let alone it's called "Turkish cap". In short, the article fails in WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. -Mttll (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep With some sourcing, this article could be an easy salvage. It's well written, but does lack WP:VERIFY & WP:SOURCE. I'd suggest referring it for such improvements rather than trashing it entirely. My 2 cents. Ren99 (talk) 11:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been referred for exactly that, per deletion policy, unless you do more than just argue that if sources existed it could be fixed. You need to prove that sources do exist. We don't have articles without the existence of sources. Unverifiability isn't a lack of citations, it's a lack of sources. Mttll has asserted that the original author has provided nothing in the way of sources, and that xyr own attempts to find sources have failed. So it's up to you to find sources, and demonstrate that they exist. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another important element of the Wiki environment is showing a little personal initiative. If you see weaknesses in the sourcing, rather than say; "source, source, source", please add some and not bemoan it. This isn't my type of interest article, but it seems to motivate you, so please improve on it by adding sources :) If you don't want to improve it, toss a "delete" below this comment or ask someone else to. Aren't we just tossing out the baby before the bath water otherwise? Ren99 (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kiddo, the burden is on you to make your keep argument in a way that holds water, not for me to do it for you. You've been given good advice. You can foolishly argue about being given advice as you are doing, and watch as the article gets deleted because you made an AFD argument that didn't hold any water in the face of a deletion-policy-based one that does, despite being told what argument would have held water on your part, or you can do as I advised you to do and actually put deletion policy into practice. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Re-Sir: This ain't my article; I didn't write it. I gave you some good advice, source it if YOU want it. I don't care. Please make sure your arguments address your concerns, otherwise your point lands on the wrong ears. Also, try to address folks with the proper consideration, after all, many of us are at least your peer(s) in prowess and ability (and many easily more so, as with me as well). Anyway, before you say; "Kiddo," make sure you aren't precursing it with; "Pardon me for being a dork..." first. Respect. It's easy to use :) Ren99 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Kiddo, the burden is on you to make your keep argument in a way that holds water, not for me to do it for you. You've been given good advice. You can foolishly argue about being given advice as you are doing, and watch as the article gets deleted because you made an AFD argument that didn't hold any water in the face of a deletion-policy-based one that does, despite being told what argument would have held water on your part, or you can do as I advised you to do and actually put deletion policy into practice. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Another important element of the Wiki environment is showing a little personal initiative. If you see weaknesses in the sourcing, rather than say; "source, source, source", please add some and not bemoan it. This isn't my type of interest article, but it seems to motivate you, so please improve on it by adding sources :) If you don't want to improve it, toss a "delete" below this comment or ask someone else to. Aren't we just tossing out the baby before the bath water otherwise? Ren99 (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been referred for exactly that, per deletion policy, unless you do more than just argue that if sources existed it could be fixed. You need to prove that sources do exist. We don't have articles without the existence of sources. Unverifiability isn't a lack of citations, it's a lack of sources. Mttll has asserted that the original author has provided nothing in the way of sources, and that xyr own attempts to find sources have failed. So it's up to you to find sources, and demonstrate that they exist. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I had a look at this before but am not very familiar with the Turkish language and so balked at digging into sources in that language about the hacı takkesi. The type of hat described here obviously exists as we have multiple articles such as kufi and taqiyah (cap). My impression is that someone looking for information about a Turkish cap is mostly likely wanting the fez (hat) article. A redirect there would be sensible and would preserve this edit history in case there's something more to it. And, now I think of it, I came across a Turkish editor at lady's navel. I'll ask him to help. Warden (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm a native Turkish speaker and I can tell you there isn't a specific name in Turkish for this object. "Hacı takkesi", literally pilgrim's cap, is not this. Having read the discussion in the talk page of this article in Turkish wikipedia (which was created by direct translation from English wikipedia, for the record), let me tell you editors there don't know what this item is, except that it's a cap.
- Comment Well being a native Turkish speaker, I was asked to comment on Turkish cap. I am not familiar with Turkish cap and in Turkish the name Turkish cap is not used. But if Turkish cap is indeed Hacı takkesi in Turkish, yes there is a garment called Hacı takkesi. But it is almost unique to pilgrims and it is not what it is described in the text. (In addition to Turkish Wikipedia there are many hits in both yahoo and google search engines in Turkish. [1] But they all refer to cap worn during the pilgrimage) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Question. Is a hacı takkesi the same as what is called a namaz takkesi? --Lambiam 11:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we please move towards a conclusion in this discussion? --Mttll (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The conclusion seems obvious. The article is unsourced. The object described (a kufi) is not known by this name except on Wikipedia, and is not (in contrast to what is stated) a hajji's cap. No existing or former headgear is known as "Turkish cap", so there is no suitable redirect target either. --Lambiam 00:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Per Lambiam and the guidance of the Turkish-speaking editors above. The content of the article appears to be unsupported by sources in English or Turkish, and "turkish cap" has an ambiguous meaning in English, at best, so any redirect would seem to be more confusing than helpful.--Arxiloxos (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2012 (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.