Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KaraÐoz
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:00, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
KaraÐoz[edit]
The article claims its subject is a "recently discovered [piece of] folklore", but googling on [KaraÐoz Croatia] returns one hit, which appears to be unrelated, and a search on "CuttaJoes", the suggested alternate spelling, gets no hits. Delete unless verified. Meelar (talk) 02:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Why would this article be selected for deletion? I recently heard this story from my girlfriend who is from Croatia and told me about the KaraÐoz myth among other things and thought I would add it under the proper category (lists of species in folklore.) It does not break any of the rules for deletion (i.e., not copyright infringment, not vanity page, spam or advertising, and is not patent nonsense) and fits perfectly within the mythologies already listed under the catagory. And incidentaly, a mythology, by Wikipedia's own definition, "are generally stories based on tradition and legend designed to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself." and "many simple legends and narratives passed down orally from generation to generation have mythic content". Just because a particular search engine has not been able to pick up on a regional myth is no reason for deletion. There are THOUSANDS of such myths and folklores that, when searched for, do not garner hits in Google. I say keep until proven not a myth. As for Google, my domain name and website, genshi.com has been online since 1999 and was always searchable until this year when searching for genshi.com garnered ZERO hits. I had to beg and fight with Google for this omission and now (as of the past month) genshi.com will show results when searched on Google using quotation marks. Point being, I think Meelar puts too much faith in Google! genshi 03:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. How do we prove it is not a myth? Is not the total lack of evidence supporting this entry enough proof? Provide one single reference and you will have gone a long way in making your case. A web page, a news article, a journal article, anything will do. Word of mouth is not enough to substantiate an encyclopedia article. So I vote delete as this is a likely hoax or urban legend until I see evidence to the contrary. Gamaliel 03:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Again I say Keep because word of mouth IS enough to substantiate a myth. That is the whole point of myths, folklores and urban legends. How do you think the ridiculous Jackalope and Chupacabra got started? Now they can be found everywhere including movies, but I remember when Chupacabra first started in the early 1990s, and that WAS a hoax to begin with. Of course it will be hard to find written documentation for a strictly oral tradition from a country like Croatia (especially given the recent history of Croatia where they were not even able to keep written records of their OWN actual history due to the communist rule as Yugoslavia and the subsequent Croatian/ Bosnian/ Serbian war! Research that and you will find it is true.) genshi 03:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you must realize that without some form of verification, we can't tell whether this is real, or an elaborate prank. Unfortunately, the Internet can bring out the worst in people. Good luck on your search (I personally wouldn't know where to begin), but we must delete this unless a reference is provided of some sort. Thanks again, Meelar (talk) 03:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, unverified, possible hoax. Megan1967 03:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Apparent hoax. Delete unless referenced. —Korath (Talk) 03:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
- This is very discouraging. I had read an article regarding Wikipedia in Wired magazine and thought it a fascinating and brilliant idea (me being a long time supporter of the open source community.) My first contribution to this site and within minutes an elitist storm wants to delete the entry. I would understand if it was an article falsely making statements regarding a current president or giving ridiculous statistics on an historical subject that has known and provable facts, but this is an article about a regional oral folklore... a myth. And a myth is a myth; it doesn't exist to begin with except as a myth, so why so adamant about not including it? There are many oral myths that are not provable until the first bold person puts it into print... and isn't this just what Wikipedia encourages? This is NOT a hoax and there is nothing malicious in my intent of this article, it is simply a myth that I heard. genshi 03:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's not what Wikipedia encourages. In fact, Wikipedia prohibits it. One of the rules here is no original research. Wikipedia is not intended to be a trendsetter for cataloging new and cutting edge material, it is by its very nature a secondary resource which records and summarizes the work of others. This is nothing new; encyclopedias are traditionally not the place to record anything new, whether it be scientific discoveries or oral traditions or whatever. If you are the first one to put this myth into print, the proper place would be something like an academic journal. Then we can use such journal articles are resources and references to write a Wikipedia article on the subject. The use of such references is hardly "elitist", nor is demanding that one back up one's assertions with facts. Gamaliel 04:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ahh... Sorry, I did not realize the no original research rule. I just sort of jumped right in and then was shocked that so soon everyone wants to delete something so simple and harmless (and still true.) Wikipedia keeps saying "Be bold with your edits" or "be bold with what you write" so I misunderstood. But it makes sense the way you put it Gamaliel, "encyclopedias are traditionally not the place to record anything new" and I would have to agree with you on that as well. I apologize for being so sensitive to this, my first post. genshi 04:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Hi genshi and welcome to Wikipedia. It's unfortunate that your first contribution to Wikipedia was nominated to vfd. Don't be discouraged if this article gets deleted. Wikipedia has many rules and precedents, and you may have to hang around for a while to get used to all of them. DaveTheRed 07:02, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ahh... Sorry, I did not realize the no original research rule. I just sort of jumped right in and then was shocked that so soon everyone wants to delete something so simple and harmless (and still true.) Wikipedia keeps saying "Be bold with your edits" or "be bold with what you write" so I misunderstood. But it makes sense the way you put it Gamaliel, "encyclopedias are traditionally not the place to record anything new" and I would have to agree with you on that as well. I apologize for being so sensitive to this, my first post. genshi 04:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- No, it's not what Wikipedia encourages. In fact, Wikipedia prohibits it. One of the rules here is no original research. Wikipedia is not intended to be a trendsetter for cataloging new and cutting edge material, it is by its very nature a secondary resource which records and summarizes the work of others. This is nothing new; encyclopedias are traditionally not the place to record anything new, whether it be scientific discoveries or oral traditions or whatever. If you are the first one to put this myth into print, the proper place would be something like an academic journal. Then we can use such journal articles are resources and references to write a Wikipedia article on the subject. The use of such references is hardly "elitist", nor is demanding that one back up one's assertions with facts. Gamaliel 04:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless published documentation of the myth/legend can be provided. --Angr 11:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and comment: an alternate spelling (not mentioned in the article) would be Karadjoz, which is the name of a 1970 miniseries and seems to be a Muslim given name in Bosnia. Still can't find a reference to it as a mythical creature, but then a lot of the sites are in Croatian/Bosnian, which I can't read. --Angr 11:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Not to beat a dead horse here but, Karadjoz is not an alternate spelling, it is a completely different word (a name actually.) Remember also that the whole region which was once Yugoslavia is made of of at least three different peoples, Croatians, Bosnians and Serbians, all of which had their own languages, cultures, mythos, etc. The Karadjoz muslim name has nothing to do with Croatians, but because they were all forced to live together for so long, the word quite easily gets confused with KaraÐoz (and it is possible that this is where the Croatian myth of the KaraÐoz came from, except that they would have more than likely used a Serbian word to name their mythical mischievous creature as the Serbs were their enemy during the war, not the Bosnians!) So, just because an extra letter is added doesn't make it an alternate spelling. It is the equivalent of the Irish words "teach" (house) and "teacht" (coming) yes? genshi 18:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Dj is a variant of the letter Đ in the Latin spelling of The Language Formerly Known As Serbo-Croatian; the Cyrillic equivalent is Ђ. (See Zoran Djindjic, for example.) In other words, Karadjoz and Karađoz are completely equivalent; both would be written Карађоз in Cyrillic. I don't know why this article uses capital Ð instead of lower-case đ. --Angr 15:04, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Not to beat a dead horse here but, Karadjoz is not an alternate spelling, it is a completely different word (a name actually.) Remember also that the whole region which was once Yugoslavia is made of of at least three different peoples, Croatians, Bosnians and Serbians, all of which had their own languages, cultures, mythos, etc. The Karadjoz muslim name has nothing to do with Croatians, but because they were all forced to live together for so long, the word quite easily gets confused with KaraÐoz (and it is possible that this is where the Croatian myth of the KaraÐoz came from, except that they would have more than likely used a Serbian word to name their mythical mischievous creature as the Serbs were their enemy during the war, not the Bosnians!) So, just because an extra letter is added doesn't make it an alternate spelling. It is the equivalent of the Irish words "teach" (house) and "teacht" (coming) yes? genshi 18:04, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and comment: an alternate spelling (not mentioned in the article) would be Karadjoz, which is the name of a 1970 miniseries and seems to be a Muslim given name in Bosnia. Still can't find a reference to it as a mythical creature, but then a lot of the sites are in Croatian/Bosnian, which I can't read. --Angr 11:10, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Because what little is written regarding KaraÐoz is written in Croatian, if I may have a couple of days to translate a few of the sites regarding KaraÐoz in hopes to find some sort of reference to the myth, I would appreciate it. Though, I will admit, this may be futile. genshi 18:12, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unless some references are added --Neigel von Teighen 18:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Keep at least long enough for genshi to produce a source. It does not have any characteristics of an urban legend or another hoax.
- Delete as unverifiable, though I will be happy to change my vote to keep if confirmation from an outside reliable source can be offered. -- Infrogmation 18:57, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Delete unverifiable, probably hoax. What the heck is "newly discovered folklore" supposed to be anyway? Fawcett5 01:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.