Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gäp

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 due to lack of reliable sources to verify the existence and notability of this subject. --RL0919 (talk) 11:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gäp

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

Article purports to be about a Cryptolect from Tatar; but there are no sources (only link is dead), and I can't find any, anywhere. I'm concerned that this is actually a very subtle attack page. Furthermore, ru.wiki doesn't have an article under any of these names, which makes me even more suspicious. My feeling is that it if this is legitimate, it needs sources, and since it's been around for 3 years without them, it's time for it to go. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any references to verify this article. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary The article seems to me more like a dictionary definition with examples so would be better at Wiktionary rather than wikipedia. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a good idea assuming anything in the article can be verified. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already exist in Russian wiktionary, but there only 'talk' meaning is presented. [1] --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a creator. I'm sorry that the link is broken now. The material of the broken link article is now located here: http://uzebez.org/2007-11-02/tatar-telen-taptarga-kir%D3%99k/ . It is in Tatar langauge, and in Cyrillic but you may prove that it has the same sence after comparing examples from article with examples from link. As for abscence in other languages, surely, it is quite normal. if you still assume me in vandal edits you may look through my editions. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article does not look like an attack page to me. Attacking an area of a city would not be unheard-of, but it's not that likely either. Mentioning the high crime rate makes sense as the language variant discussed is a cryptolect. (I know about two cryptolects of German: one used by children for fun, and one used by criminals.)

The obvious problem here is that we have a source that only very few, if any, editors other than the content creator can read, and for which Google translate does not work. (I tried several other languages. Only for Russian there was a tiny number of plausible English words.)

I note that there is a Tartar Wikipedia at http://tt.wikipedia.org/ . Üñţïf̣ļëŗ, is there any chance that you could create a Tartar version on that sister project? Even better would be on http://ru.wikipedia.org/ because that site is bigger and probably better maintained. I think this could accommodate at least some of the concerns.

I would really hate to lose a page such as this one if it is legitimate, and I can see no policy reason for deleting it. (Nominating it was of course a good idea, though.) The ultimate rule for our treatment of sources in languages other than English is still common sense. In this case this could include keeping the AfD open for several weeks while looking for linguists or Tatar-speaking editors. Hans Adler 12:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a Russian interwiki. Also, I've found the original link in the Internet archive, originally it was a site of Tatar R'n'B group and a page was devoted to the modern slang and the historical one. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you created the Russian article for the purpose. That's great, thanks. This satisfies my concerns. I am watching the page, so in the event it would ever be deleted from the Russian Wikipedia I would notice and check what's going on. Since Russian seems to be spoken universally in Kazan, I expect that any problems would be discovered on the Russian Wikipedia sooner or later. Since I can't evaluate the main source myself, week keep. Hans Adler 20:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is somewhat ambigous because Gäp, a common Turkic for talk, is also used (in similar or different meanings) in other Asian cultures (here's a thesis from U of Ghent, in Russia, which touches on the meaning of Gäp in Uzbek culture [2]). Perhaps renaming is appropriate - set the scope. East of Borschov 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note, that only Tatar language use the current romanization with a-diaeresis. For any other languages it will be another spelling and for Uzbek it is gap, without diacritics. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the sourcing is improved during this AfD. Per WP:V, all articles require reliable sources, and this article has none: only links to two websites of indeterminable reliability. Sandstein 05:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. What kind of information on this page seems to be an attack? Also, look though my edits - the most of them about facts never known for English-speaking world, such as small rivers in Tatarstan, with no online references at all. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 19:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies on thinking it's a hoax/attack. But here's what I see when I look at the page: An alleged cryptolect, linked to an area of a city allegedly high in crime. No references support either claim. Second, the only example sentence given further emphasizes not so much the language as the criminality. With no reliable sources to support, it was hard for me to believe that this was a legitimate article. Now, I may very well be wrong. However, even if I am wrong, the article needs reliable sources in order to be kept--if this cryptolect is unverifiable, it shouldn't be included in the encyclopedia (and thus the article deleted). If it is verifiable but we can't find sufficient sourcing to prove it's notable, then the information should be merged into another article (either the city article, the Tatar language article, or both). Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed any mentioning about criminality. More, in the references we have now, I've found nothing about it (and probably I'll found nothing about the on www, at least in English). But I can do nothing with the example - the only way to prove that it isn't hoax - to give references to the Tatar words on Russian wiktionary: --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the absence of verifiable sources. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, verify the phrasing using links above. You may also found this phrasing on the referenced pages. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 18:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think keeping the sentence as is now is fine, given the removal of "high crime" from the lead. As to whether or not we have enough verification for the article, I'll leave that to others/the closing admin. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2010 (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.