Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovakization

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 no consensus. Petros471 10:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakization

ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

Nomination on behalf of User Juro, who is unfamiliar with the AFD process in the English Wikipedia. Article lacks content and context, and appears to be a neologism. Borisblue 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete--62.1.204.210 06:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The vote is from a sock of a permabanned User:Bonaparte abakharev 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a non-sense--81.30.98.18 06:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Only three edits abakharev 06:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--218.38.13.111 06:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only edit of the IP abakharev 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete must be deteled 210.233.102.70 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other edit of this IP is vandalism abakharev 06:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Three quick votes from anonymous IPs seem to show that some sock/meatpuppetry is being used. --Daniel Olsen 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this crap--193.17.54.137 10:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Open proxy abakharev 10:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete this article --218.103.58.139 10:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only edit of the IP
delete why not delete? --212.85.152.222 10:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The only edit of the IP
Abstain I'm just nominating this on behalf of Juyo. Borisblue 06:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, gets a bunch of Google hits, which proves that it's not a neologism. ~~The article actually lacks content because Juro deleted 90% of it.~~ (I see that Boris has now re-added most of it) If we have articles like Albanisation, Bulgarization, Hellenization, Kurdification, Turkification, etc. (see Category:Cultural assimilation for the full list), I see no reason to delete this one. It's definately a notable topic, used in relation to the Hungarians and Rusyns in Slovakia. See [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. —Khoikhoi 06:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the word appeared in about 71 books. [14] [15]. —Khoikhoi 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said on the talk page: if you look right on the first page of your first book search link, the texts are about deslovakization, reslovakization (explicitely or per content) or things like "Slovakization of Czech words" (in a purely linguistic sense) and one is about "natural" Slovakization (because Rusyn is very similar to Slovak). I still think this is one reason for moving this and similar words to the wictionary. Nobody denies that the word technically exists like for any other nationality or language. Juro 10:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. It could use some expansion and some sources though. --Daniel Olsen 06:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's got one source so far. As I develop the article I'll make sure to add more. —Khoikhoi 06:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have explained my points on the talk page of the article, where I have also explained the problem with Khokhoi's google "hits" (and they should be at least several thousands, anyway). As a general short remark, I wonder how one can talk about "Slovakization" after WWII with respect to Hungarians, when the number of Hungarians in (Czecho-)Slovakia increased during that period, while it decreased in Hungary - their mother country - itself. (And Khoikhoi, given your permanent eagerness in Hungary-related issues, are you sure you are not a very carefully hidden sockpuppet of someone I know?) Juro 10:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Khoikhoi has two socks at least. Ungurul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Român (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Vlachos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Moldavos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--222.124.24.117 11:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- IP's only edit. Kimchi.sg 14:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional delete; the article is not even 24 hours old yet, so maybe good verifiable, reliable sources will be added to show that this isn't original research. If that's done by the time this AFD is over, I'll change my vote to keep. Otherwise, delete it. User:Angr 14:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Keep now; article has been expanded and is well-sourced. User:Angr 15:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The article had a source but Juro keeps deleting it on the basis that he thinks it's wrong. —Khoikhoi 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - - I KNOW it is wrong, as wrong as 1+1 is not 3. Visit the region and ask anybody, if you do not believe me. I will cite some sources when it is necessary, but currently this article should be deleted. That's absolutely beyond any doubt. And you will find no sources on the internet or in a US library, because Slovakia is very scarcely represented there. Juro 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC) And am still persuaded that you are a sockpuppet of a well-known user. Juro 20:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no relevant information in the article and existence of the phenomenon itself is doubtful. Tankred 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is now semi-protected because of an anon who refuses to let the article say anything at all. User:Angr 19:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Current version of article has sufficient reliable sources to write a verifiable article. JChap2007 19:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is factually wrong, the other sources contain the word in a general sense. Juro 19:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - every new article is of low quality and lacks information but that's not enough reason to automatically delete them. Slovakization exists as a phenomenon and also as a term. There is no reason to think that this stub won't grow to an ordinary article sooner or later. Zello 21:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is impossible to write the article under these circumstances. There is no need for a second Magyarization article. Zello 13:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read the article, there is only 1 sentence on Magyarisation and that sentence is very important. And yes, it is impossible to write anything here, because you have bothered to delete pure facts (statistics etc.). And the Magyarisation article will be extended. Juro 13:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is about Magyarization and the glorious minority policy of Slovakia. That's absurd. Zello 14:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying Zello, only one sentence is on Magyarisation. You have not read the text and simply started to vandalize. That is incredible hypocricy on your part. The truth is that you do cannot support what the article contains. And be sure that I will extend the Magyarisation article correspondingly, now that these questions have been opened by your and your nationalist co-editors.Juro 15:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do as you want I won't work under these circumstances. Zello 15:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are lying Juro, there is more than 1 sentence on Magyarisation. You have not read the title and simply started to vandalize. That is incredible hypocrisy on your part. The truth is that you cannot support the facts. And be sure that I will put a link to Slovakization into every Slovakia-related article, now that you and your nationalist co-editors have tried to own these topics... – Naturally, not half a word of this is serious, I'm just paraphrasing what you said above so that I can ask this: are you unable or unwilling to notice the disgusting personal attacks and unfair threats you are making? K issL 07:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, you are not telling the truth: Only the introductory sentence was about Magyarisation. Irrespective of this, even if 10 paragraphs would be about Magyarisation: as long as the information is relevant, you will not delete it. This is pure ch.... (leaving out "personal" attack). Juro 18:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading what I said again. I've added some emphasis to make it clearer. :o) K issL 10:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No amount of trolling and vandalism should be reason enough to delete a valid article. If anyone insists on transforming the article into a second Magyarization, that person should be taken to RfC. It's as easy as that. K issL 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Valid stub with reliable citations. Any other concerns are not a matter for AfD but for cleanup. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The occurrence of a word in a text is a valid "citation" for a dictionary, not necessarily for an encyclopaedia. You have not read the citations. Incredible. Juro 03:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons listed by user:Juro. --Dudo2 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article contains citations from reliable sources establishing verifiability and notability. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kinu, and block Juro if he continues to disrupt its growth/vandalize it. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so like always one (Hungarian) vandal managed to manipulate the whole wikipedia. We will have the first article in the world titled Slovakization (original research by a sockpuppet user who has absolutely no idea about the topic and only knows that we have Kurdification so we have to have Slovakization too), In addition, in line with reality , however, the article will have to imply that no such organized process exists, rather the opposite. Neither the title nor the content will be correct, nevertheless we are going to keep it. Very interesting..Juro 03:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fill the article with hard-core historical evidence to maintain credibility and scientific exactness. Árpád 06:49, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, since there is a magyarization page also, so it would be a racist double standard not to keep it. In fact in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries discussing Slovakization is more essential given the daily treatment of Hungarians in Slovakia (Jan Slota, who is part of the governing coalition, called for the "flattening of Budapest" by tanks). His inclusion in the Slovak parliament has made Slovak-Magyar coexistence considerably more difficult. Alphysikist 07:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody has called for nothing, Arpad. He said that - if you read the whole quote - for the case Slovakia would be attacked by Hungary, and he said that when he was drunk. Also, he was "included" in the parlament also in the past. Next, it is completely irrelevant what an individual person thinks or says, I have told you this several times. Postcards and novels (cited by you) are also irrelevant, fascist and nationalist sources (cited by you) are also irrelevant. Next, if you have deleted such opinions from the Magyarisation article, you may not add them elsewhere. And I am leaving out "personal attacks", although you are an obvious fascist (which is a fact). And permament creation of sockpuppets is another form of deception. Juro 10:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zello. K issL 11:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was on the fence, but Joru's behavior and general attitude here prompts me to err on the inclusionary side. If it doesn't evolve into a better article, maybe it should be deleted later. Sxeptomaniac 22:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This really could be an interesting article. I don't see why it should be deleted. Peter O. (Talk) 18:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the Slovakization (or Czechization, etc) was real and adopted as either explicit or implicit state policy by the new national states of Central Europe this article is just a spotty and incoherent coverage of Slovakian history. The facts about Slovakization are few to none. IME this kind of articles tends to attract warriors and to expand with ultra detailed coverage of irrelevant events. Deleting it and keeping the heads cool for a month would be the most useful act to reach some quality of the text. Btw. User:Juro is very valuable, long term Slovak editor whose opinion does matter here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is crap Martye 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Neologism. There are facts behind this article, but they should be covered History of Czechoslovakia. Also concur with Pavel Vozenilek. --Pjacobi 21:07, 28 August 2006 (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.