Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tirukkural translations into Meitei

Add links
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 merge to Soibam Rebika Devi & Central Institute of Classical Tamil. Seddon talk 19:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tirukkural translations into Meitei[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Tirukkural translations into Meitei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of article does not pass WP:NBOOK. The Hindu article lacks in providing significant coverage and Valai Tamil, lacking in any editorial policy (vide You acknowledge that VALAITAMIL.COM cannot and does not pre-screen Content), is not a reliable source. There is no significant coverage in Tamil news, either. (Search for திருக்குறள் + மேதி மொழி) TrangaBellam (talk) 04:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This article is part of the encyclopaedic list of translations available of the Tirukkural, one of the most widely translated work globally, and lists the translations available in that particular language. Till date, we have only one translation of the work available in the Meitei language. Perhaps this explains, in part, the paucity of information available on it. Nevertheless, the article is not without reliable source. Only the number is meager, given the availability of information. I feel deleting this will only result in an informational gap on the list. Hence I recommend keeping the article. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well. The idea is we have a separate article for each language that the work is translated into wherever we have extra (detailed) information on it that cannot be included in the main (Tirukkural translations) article (which would otherwise violate WP:UNDUE in the main article). However, this is done only when we have at least one reliable source to pass WP:NOTE. Thus you can see there is no separate article for "Tirukkural translations into Thai" or "Thirukkural translations into Norwegian" (due to non-availability of secondary/third-party source). This is not the case with Meitei translation here. Also am not basing this on inherited notability, since the current article has a couple of sources (apart from the publisher's). Rasnaboy (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who set this rule that a new article shall be written on a translation as soon as we have at least one reliable source?
  • The current article has a couple of sources (apart from the publisher's) - Not anymore.
  • WP:NOTE states, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It does not specify that an article can be created, if we have a reliable source. So, can you provide two such reliable and independent sources in support? TrangaBellam (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:COMMON and WP:EDITDISC, we don't literally go by rules all the time where commonsense is to be employed with the goal "to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers". Since there are more information on this topic which when retained in the main article Tirukkural translations may clash with WP:UNDUE, I created this article upon sensing a need for it. I've added one more independent source now. Please check. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said this fails WP:NOTE. Even if I had said/thought otherwise, that shouldn’t bother the article so long as it has reliable sources to support every claim made, which I think it does. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:NRV, the topic of Kural translations is notable. The article is a part of translations available on the Kural text. Since there is only one translation available in Meitei so far, we have comparatively less number of sources. I don't think that should make the topic less notable. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NRV states, No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason. Sources of evidence include recognized peer-reviewed publications, credible and authoritative books, reputable media sources, and other reliable sources generally. Not that translations of Kural are notable.
  • We do not have comparatively less number of sources. We have two, one of which is by the publisher. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kural translations are an ongoing process for centuries now and are not a mere short-term interest. Significant independent coverage (for each translated language) is what we have to look for. With the recent addition of more sources, I think this issue has been resolved. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that [s]ignificant independent coverage (for each translated language) is what we have to look for.
  • Which source provides signficant coverage apart from this source? WP:NOTE states, A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources [plural] that are independent of the subject. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:NRV and above the topic of Kural translations is notable. The article is a part of translations available on the Kural text. Grandruskiy48 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have copied Bhagya sri113's comment word-by-word w/o answering the raised issues. This is not a ballot-poll. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This doesn't fall under any of the thing listed under WP:NOTNEWS for it is not about a fading event in the news or a routine reporting of some announcements but about a growing corpus of translations available on an ancient literary work. Only the sources are from newspapers, among other publications. Also it is part of the list of all the available translations, not just the work of a particular person/entity (e.g., the Central Institute of Classical Tamil, in our case). Of course, these details can be included in the CICT article by virtue of their contributions to the Kural translations, but that doesn't mean simply merging the article with the CICT article since the article's scope is beyond this organization. Bhagya sri113 (talk) 08:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking independent notability. Most Tirukkural translations deserve a single line in a list, if any mention is to be made of them at all. This is an encyclopedia, not a annotated bibilography of publishing. --Bejnar (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although list of translations of an ancient work (or any global work, for that matter) is encyclopedic in itself, not all individual translations are notable. Even within the Tirukkural translations, not all language translations are notable. Agree (e.g., Thai, Norwegian, Burmese, Vaagri Booli, Garo language translations of the Kural text). Hence they are listed in the main translations article. However, similar to the list of translations of the Bible, many of them have enough coverage by two or more newspapers (third-party sources), books and other secondary sources per WP:RS. Meitei language translations is one such item in that list that has more information than can be listed in said list (which if listed in the main article will violate WP:UNDUE) and hence deserve separate article. The history details for each Kural translation within a given language speak to that and is enough to show that it is not an annotated bibliography. Rasnaboy (talk) 13:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mere availability of information is not a reason for an article. That is why Wikipedia has notability guidelines. --Bejnar (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get it. But the point here is this doesn't fall under any of the points under WP:NOTEVERYTHING. I'm not talking about its mere availability, which might otherwise violate WP:NOTNEWS, but its encyclopedic merit—it is the first ever translation of a Tamil work into Meitei and also the first ever Kural translation into that language. It's not any promotional work but a part of a historically important corpus of translation works of literary merit. Thus it doesn't come under WP:NOTNEWS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE despite some of the sources being newspapers. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to Soibam Rebika Devi per Wikipedia:Content forking. The Central Institute of Classical Tamil translates many works, and its not clear a merger there would be warranted, as it would shift the weight of the article towards a single translation. I think the best target is the page on the author of the translation, as this work is the primary claim for the author's notability. It would make sense to give a detailed description of the translation in the article on the translator as basically they are duplicate topics.4meter4 (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scope of the article is beyond the work of one single translator and thus it is too far from just merging with the translator's article (WP:DUP). The article is meant for listing all translations available in that language (the Meitei language, in this case) and the currently available one is that of Soibam Rebika Devi. It doesn't stop there. The article on a single translator and the one on the list of available translations by different translators are two discrete subjects per WP:NOTMERGE. Rasnaboy (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with that interpretation. She’s the only named author, and the translation is essentially her work. Further, it’s the only claim to her notability as a subject on the encyclopedia, meaning this content is specifically pertinent to her encyclopedia entry. Additionally, your argument is based around an assumption that other translations of the Tirukkural into Meitei will be made in the future. That is a faulty argument per WP:CRYSTAL. There are no guarantees that additional translations will ever be made. If and when that does occur, then this article can be re-created. At this point this article is a duplicate of content on the author and they should be merged per Wikipedia:Content forking. 4meter4 (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject of the article, being the translations of a specific book into a specific language, does not have significant coverage. I find the pseudo-formalistic argument of Rasnaboy (This article is part of the encyclopaedic list of translations available of the Tirukkural...), i.e. if it's a part of a set of such articles it's okay, to be based on two false premises: (1) the false premise that the current treatment of this topic area is appropriate, (2) the false premise that articles can't be evaluated individually. Treating the topic of Tirukkural translations through a host of untenable daughter micro-articles is bad, and this article exemplifies it. It is not a legitimate way to structure content. More work needs to be done on the parent Tirukkural translations article to make it easier to include needed information there. Edit: I studied how this topic area is systematized in the case of the Bible. There are both good and bad examples. Good example: Bible translations into the languages of Russia | Bad example: Bible translations into the languages of France. Now imagine absolutely every one of those languages' of Russia Bible translations having it's own article. — Alalch Emis (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't claim that articles cannot be evaluated individually (the very reason why I talk about the scope of the article as in WP:NOTMERGE or WP:DUP) but I do find this topic area appropriate for reasons I listed above. I agree with you that more work needs to be done on the parent article, but that doesn't stop the daughter articles from getting created when the need arises. I don't know if the Meitei translation be compared to Bible translations in languages of France or Russia. All those minor languages are overshadowed by the main national language of that country (viz. French or Russian), but that's not the case with any of the major Indian languages—all the 22 official languages of India are the chief and official languages of the respective states of India, each with a rich literary history of their own (Manipuri/Meitei is one of them). These translations are only adding to that corpus of literature. Hence I felt the encyclopedic value of this topic. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tirukkural_translations_into_Meitei&oldid=1029404433"