Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mankurt

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. Scott Mac 21:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mankurt[edit]

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

Mankert has very little exposure on the WWW in English, most of the entries were mirrors of this page. I considered putting it up for deletion as a neologism, but given the content of the article and one rather unreliable reference I converted it into a film article. However as I know little about the structure of film articles, I left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Mankurt, the one message at WikiProject Film seems to confirm that this film is not notable in the English speaking world. One possible option would be to move the content into The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years but as it is not sourced I am not sure that this would be desirable. PBS (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A simple book search seems to give a lot of titles, but it includes passage from books such as "...man Kurt Russell" and foreign books. If the term is put in quotes and English only sources are included then most of the books return are talking about "Mankurt" as a term from the novel by Chinghiz Aitmatov called The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years or how it has become common coin in the countries in the Former Soviet Union. -- PBS (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking under its actual Russian title of Манкурт seems to give better results... and ones that do not involve combinations of "man" and "Kurt Russel"... [1][2] Let's see if we have enough Russian language sources to indicate notability (even if only in Russia). Going through them now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years. The term is a neologism, and the film doesn't seem to be notable. The lengthy description of the torture is unnecessary both in a stand-alone article and in the main article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Schmidt. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mankurt" as a word is a neologism, yes... but it's also the Soviet film... Манкурт Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the non-notability of the topic, but no problem with fresh recreation as a redirect. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am now going through the Russian language sources as shared above. Perhaps we might find that Манкурт has notability in Russia, even Soviet Russia, is okay for en.Wikipedia. I'll report back. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirect the "word" mankurt to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years#Film. And now (struck Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.})
Keep currently modified article which is only about a film - based upon nominator's earlier work. After I performed trimming, cleanup, and sourcing to the herein nominated article,[3] I went and included the sourced information about this film in a newly created section at the novel's article.[4] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done. I am happy with either leaving the article as is after you modifications, or the redirect to The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years#Film. -- PBS (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was fun to dig out. The original article was a bit of a bear... but your initial cleanup work helped greatly. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If kept, the now re-written article can be moved to Mankurt (film) as a dis-ambig, and the "word" mankurt can be set as a clean redirect to the novel as offered above. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC) (struck. New opinion - see below Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.})[reply]

Per User:Erik,[5] rather than a dismbig, as the primary topic IS now a film article, and not a neologism, I added a hatnote to the article,[6] directing readers to where they might better find contextual information about the term "mankurt". If readers find the film while looking for the term, they can now go find the term. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a specific subsection "Mankurt" under "Main themes" section on the articles about the novel, and added that to the hat note of the film article Mankurt. So unless anyone objects over the next 24 hours I suggest that we remove the template and close this debate. -- PBS (talk) 07:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quite nicely done! Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting notability guidelines. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because as the nominator I am involved, I will not close it as the AfD guidelines suggests that as I am involved I should not do so. So I'll leave it open and let some other person close it. -- PBS (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The film seems to be meeting notability requirements.--Badvibes101 (talk) 03:30, 23 February 2011 (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.