Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armenian Eternity sign

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. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Eternity sign[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete, There is no any reliable information in this article, no facts which would be verified by RS, sheer falsification and original researches of the writers of this article. Almost all of the facts in this article absurd results of original research. But there are no reliable sources nor in the Armenian, nor in English about that "symbol". --Δαβίδ (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AFD is now properly templated --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this kind of ornaments was used in the ancient Armenian architecture with that I don't argue, but the fact that it is a "symbol" and had the value of simbol for the Armenians is not proven by RS an that is original researches. A particular ornament of old pagan architecture is not a theme for separate article.

Besides that, there is texts in article that are not directly related to it.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:24, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - obviously there is a language barrier here which makes things more difficult but that part of your argument that I do understand seems contrary to WP guidelines and policies. You say that, "Maybe this kind of ornaments was used in the ancient Armenian architecture". If that is the case, wouldn't WP:NOTTEMP come into play? The article gives examples of the symbol's use in art, architecture, modern corporate logos and relatively modern Government-minted coins. Are you suggesting that combining those examples in this article is some form of synthesis? I will say that the sourcing looks pretty weak, with a stack of dead links and some general comments that clearly aren't sources, but searching for "Armenian Eternity symbol" in Google brings up many, many results including many image results that all correspond with what is in the article. Stalwart111 00:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, I thing the language barrier has no any connection to this, because there are no RS in Armenian language as well. This is not encyclopedicly written article, it's only fabricated. There only added facts which are not connected to the issue (about swastikas, buddism and so on), falsificated and non encyclopedic statements (as national identity simbol and so on) and no sources (user used his own opinion as a sourse for his another research) not in Armenian, nor in English. And in this case, non of statement in this article, even the fact that this is symbol, was not proven. Google searchings does not bring the facts that this is symbol. "Maybe this kind of ornaments was used in the ancient Armenian architecture" yes of coruse as well as many other ornaments such as grapes, granates, octagonal stars and many other ornaments which are used in armenian, georgian and other architectural ornaments too, but that doesnt mean that we can represent that ornament as symbol as it done in article. That is only original researches. --Δαβίδ (talk) 09:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I've moved your comment up here as a response to mine). By "language barrier", I meant between participants here in this conversation, not in the article. Language issues in the article are a WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM sort of problem. Again, the issue I have here is that the symbol in question seems to be a widely recognised and well known symbol, both in the ancient world and more recently. I'm currently working on the article Occult symbols, so I do have some understanding of the issues in play here. While I understand that some of the claims in the article might constitute original research, that's just a matter of editing those claims out. I just don't think this is non-notable and I don't think it should be deleted. It's regular use in ancient architecture and modern business would almost qualify as "significant coverage" in my view. Cut it back, sure, but the title should be kept and moved to Armenian eternity symbol. Stalwart111 12:44, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, original researches are only one of problems in this article, there are also misrepresentaion of facts too. You bring me collage of pics in this article as a proof, but most of that pics are not connected with the issue as most of text too. For example simbol on this picture. That is classic swastika on newspaper, so how it connected with this so called "simbol", or pictures from ancient petroglyphs or on the carpests and so on.

Another example of falsifing of facts is usage of some terms here. For example "Kerkhach" with the source. Kerkhach is only armenian synonym for nazi swastika, how it reletas to this article? So, if we remove that facts from this article, it will look like in previos version: only one sentence without RS.--Δαβίδ (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had a few concerns about the swastika cross-references and couldn't find a source equating the two. It seems the only way you could equate the two is to compare the eternity symbol's meaning to Buddhist and Hindu eternity symbols in terms of meaning and then draw a loose comparison between symbol shapes to suggest they are one in the same. Again, I have no problem with the article being cut back to a stub as you suggest above, but deletion doesn't seem to be the right answer. I think we should have coverage here of the symbol itself but I don't disagree that much of the content of the current article should probably be deleted. WP:TNT might be relevant. Stalwart111 22:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I will cut off most of that text, but previous stub version has also been nominated for deletion.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not really, it was tagged for speedy deletion which was declined. That's not the same thing as having previously been nominated at AFD. Anyway, I think where you have the article now is a good start, except for perhaps one or two of the {{cn}} templates. It's a bit silly to ask for a citation for the first line which suggests it was an ancient Armenian symbol next to a large image of the symbol on an ancient Armenian structure. I don't think it takes a great deal of original research to interpret a giant block of stone. Stalwart111 09:45, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart this article has been nominated in AfD previosly and the result was no consensus. I have already said that i think were is some difference between such terms as "ornament" and "symbol". As an ornament it has been used in ancient archtecture, but does it have a value of symbol? we dont have any RS that will prove that fact, thats why I put that template there.--Δαβίδ (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! I had missed that one. I've added the proper div box above for the AFD of the article with a previous title. I'm not sure that use of the word "ornament" is quite right - an ornament is usually something small and physical like a little statue or an ornamental plant. It's not quite the right word for a symbol, although I suppose the symbol could be used on an ornament or in an ornamental way. It's probably a bit awkward. Are you talking about the distinction between a symbol and symbolic or symbolism? Stalwart111 02:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Δαβίδ, 46.241.233.91, 46.241.248.200 - IP vandal and no reson given. You can see this look at the history page of the files

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Armenian_Eternity_Sign_Regular.png&action=history

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Azg_Handes_1908_17_1_Ezekian_Swastika.pdf&action=history

and my talk page

commons:User_talk:Vahram_Mekhitarian#IP_vandalism

He is only concerned with the fact that in every way prevents the creation of articles on "Armenian Eternity sign" (Arevahach) in English, Russian, Armenian and other wikis. Therefore, puts on the removal of files from the Commons:Category:Armenian Eternity Sign. The editors of these articles are well aware of this vandal. No have matter for discussion.

Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This person from Armenian Wikipedia - David1992. Thanks for Stalwart. Vahram Mekhitarian (talk) 07:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Vahram Mekhitaryan, nominating the articles or the files for deletion in wiki projects is not vandalism, please read the deletion policy and stop blaming me in vandalism if there is no.--Δαβίδ (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Borjgali and retitle. There has been quite a bit of edit warring over this sign but if you look at [1], [2], [3] it seems obvious that this symbol has been used in the area of Georgia and Armenia for a long time. Dougweller (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, most of that has been uploaded to Wiki Commons under that title by user who edited this article, but most of that symbols has no any conection with the topic of article. That user was alse draw new symbols or symbol mixes like this one.--Δαβίδ (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed a huge gallery - far too large and made a mess of the page, but I notice a lot of the images were of swastikas, which if it means anything means that the symbol is a variant of the swastika, ~~so perhaps it should be merged with Swastika instead~~. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now not convinced it's a swastika variant, but I am convinced it isn't unique to Armenia and if the article is kept that needs to be made clear. I still think that this symbol must have discussion somewhere not related specifically to Armenia and that it is related to the similar symbol found in adjoining regions. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the gallery again and explained to the editor why it shouldn't be there. I also discovered that the editor in question had added a lot of copyvio material, some a few clearly unreliable sources he's used. I note that one of those, and a whole paragraph, was about swastikas - that and the gallery were clearly trying to make some sort of link. Dougweller (talk) 16:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe your'e right, I can't say surely anything about this "symbol", becase we don't have any RS, even in Armenian.--Δαβίδ (talk) 09:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stalwart, there is no topic for a separate article. Even on the nazi swastika, which was used at the state level and at almost all symbols of the countre, there is no separate article neither here nor in the German wiki, only a sub-section in the article about swastika.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty significant section from the section-redirect Nazi swastika and then we have Nazi symbolism too. I wouldn't disagree strongly with this being merged/retitled as Doug has suggested. But we do have plenty of short stub articles on particular symbols. Stalwart111 18:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seeing is believing, with all the photo evidence this is proven to be a common symbol in Armenia and arguing that it's not beggars intelligence. There's no sensible reason not to present what available information there is on it. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There has been a long discussion on russian wiki with talk, which I don't want to repeat, since most of it makes no sense. The article stayed there. There are number of academical sources in Armenian (modern and Soviet times), as well as official decisions of the Republic of Armenia (related to lots of medals and coat of arms), who call the symbol "eternity sign". Eternity sign is the standard name to refer to the symbol in Armenia (both official and academical circles). It has nothing to do with Borjgali. The Bolnisi_cross, Canterbury cross, Cross pattée, Maltese cross and Languedoc look geometrically almost the same, but they are not the same symbol. Borjgali and Armenian Eternity sign have different local names, different meanings (Sun vs eternity), different shapes (number of wings is seven for Borjgali, whereas it has to be even for Armenian Eternity sign). The symbol is used in Armenia so often (you can see from the galleries, currently deleted from article), that it is absolutely necessary to have an article in Wiki. Хаченци (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone suggests to merge with Borjgali or Swastika, how then he can explain the existence of dozens of variations of crosses in the article Christian cross. In that case we should merge all of them into one. Хаченци (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are enough sources for writing an article for this symbol. I will do it in few days. Хаченци (talk) 01:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted what I consider to be a disruptive blanking by Δαβίδ. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That should be merged with Swastika because there's no sources except UNICODE table that calls it "Armenian Eternity sign". That symbol is common in many cultures, and while it is occasionally used in Armenian State symbolics it was not given a special name and it has no special meaning in that symbolics. --Akim Dubrow (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, and you know it. There are some foreign sources, shown in Russian wiki, which call it "Armenian eternity sign", and dozens of Armenian sources, which call it "eternity sign" (without mentioning the word Armenian of course). You know all this, so why are you writing that?Хаченци (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong and speedy keep and do not merge - The idea of merging it with a Swastika makes no sense at all; Swastikas have four arms only and are very well defined elsewhere. The Armenian character may have a variable number of arms and would certainly not be recognized by for example Hindus as a variant of their symbol. Evidence for the existence of this symbol was given in Proposal to encode two symbols for Armenian in the UCS in 2010; these were accepted for encoding. As characters they are facts and Unicode characters are often the subject of articles in the Wikipedia. The character does occur in Armenian standards; in documents I have seen it has a postscript name "armeternity". Its name is ARMENIAN ETERNITY SIGN in the UCS, and even if it did have other names in Armenian, that is the name of the character in Unicode. I see no reason to go crazy over this. If there are issues about the name, a paragraph can be introduced into the article about that. -- Evertype·✆ 20:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is no reason to delete this article. of course it's not in a good shape, but that can be changed. As you can see from the gallery section, it is indeed widely used in architecture and arts even today. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI see the article now says this emerged from the Indian swastika, so I'm still not convinced it shouldn't be a subsection of Swastika if that is correct. Dougweller (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article Christian cross, and few dozens of articles about several different Christian crosses. Merging makes no sense at all. It originates as Swastika, but soon after christianization of Armenia it gets a christian meaning, making it popular in Armenian Christian culture. Swastika has almost nothing to do with the sign, the only connection is that prototype of the symbol has been a sort of swastika. Хаченци (talk) 11:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the text to be deleted.

Name and synonyms: Full misinformation. "Kerhach" is a sinonym of swastika, has nothing to do here. The same about other name, at least there is no RS.

Non related content and original researches. Subpage about origin is not directly related to the topic, it can be placed in article about swastica, but not here. Statment that this is "national identity symbol" should be deleted without any discussion, because there can not be enciclopedic RS in which it can be "proven". "in a very unexpected places can meets this signs" or "traditionally made cradles" and such a other facts too.--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Хаченци, you say without mentioning the word Armenian of course? So what we are discussing?--Δαβίδ (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why should an Armenian source mention the word 'Armenian', when speaking about Armenian symbol? I can imagine a foregin source writing 'the Jewish star of David' but it's hard to imagine a Jewish source writing 'the Jewish star of David'. Currently the article os OR, but you know there is a russian WP version with dozens of sources. If the article about the sign is so important to you (and I guess it is, since all your contribution to WP is restricted to this article and related topics), why don't you simply translate them? I don't have enough time to do it. Is your goal to delete the article by any means or to improve it? Хаченци (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russian wiki version also not confirmed. Because the user consistently adding here OR text. Thats why it seems this article cannot be written without OR.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian WP there are about 30 sources mentioning the symbol.

Because the user consistently adding here OR text

Maybe you should try to give time to that user, and not delete everything he adds? Have you ever tried to use TalkPage of the article? Хаченци (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same discussion is going on ru.wiki too, with the same arguments. You shouln't bring ru.wiki article as an example.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not going to leave that noncense here, because I know what that user is tring to prove here--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not about what you know or what you want. It's about what you're allowed to do and what you aren't. You should assume that other users do not have bad goals while editing WP, unless otherwise proven. What you're doing is provocating an EW and then complaining to admins. You never even tried to use the Talk Page, before starting an edit war. That's something you should have done. If you beleive that something is nonsense, it does not mean that it really is.

The same discussion is going on ru.wiki too, with the same arguments. You shouln't bring ru.wiki article as an example.

There is completely different discussion on Russian WP. And the Russian WP article is clearly something which one should bring as an example, since there are 30 sources there and almost every claim is supported by several sources. Хаченци (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah? I've written him many times on his talkpage. And how many times he answered me? He only blaming me in vandalism and offended.--Δαβίδ (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When you have questions conecrning to the content of an article, you state them on the TalkPage of the article, so that other users also can read and comment. And not on the talk page of one single user. Хаченци (talk) 19:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statment about "identity symbol" must be removed. Only one source, report, is not enough for what.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the wrong page. Here it is discussed whather the article should be removed or not. Certain statements are discussed on the Talk page of the article. Хаченци (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the full article is consisted of such a statements, yes it must be deleted.--Δαβίδ (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: After extensively reviewing the article and doing my own research, I'm convinced that this is a significant and notable component in the symbolic identity of the Armenian people. I think this article could use a little bit of expansion with the help of foreign language sources, since I believe that most of the information pertaining to the Armenian eternity symbol is found within them. Above all, the symbol is definitely notable and highlights an important part of the Armenian identity through architecture, visual arts, and other stylized motifs. Proudbolsahye (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added some sources, to show how often it is used in Armenia, in culture and official symbolics. All given sources refer to the same symbol, under the same name 'sign of eternity' (or 'symbol of eternity').Хаченци (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Keep but add more references. Hablabar (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2013 (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.