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 - Altenmann >t 18:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Derzhava (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The transliteration of a russian word, which is nothing but an archaic term for "state". Of course, as any archaic term, it bears a certain flavor in modern Russian language, but it is hardly a subject of an encyclopedic article. Timurite (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the word has more uses and related conceptions than the English word 'state'. E.g. check google books results. The term is used in academic discourse as in everyday politics, thus, it's as relevant as, for instance, Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality is. --Miacek (t) 17:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid argument. Translations of numerous foreign words have different semantic scope. Just look into any bilingual dictionary. Timurite (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The organizations and/or the book with the name may qualify for inclusion, but not an entry about the word itself. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 17:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no need to use romanization when a perfectly good translation is available. Until the word is included in OED or another English dictionary of similar scope, it does not deserve a Wikipedia entry of its own, and even then it should be more than a dictdef.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:19, May 28, 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not just a transliteration; it's a central concept in certain ideologies. Its meaning might have changed over time, but then again it's far from being unique in that respect. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If this is the case, can it be expanded beyond a mere dictionary definition to an explanation of the concept? If not, I'm afraid I have to reassert WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If it's not listed in any English dictionaries, it's a transliteration—it's as simple as that. Otherwise we could take any Russian word describing some high concept with some regional specificity and create an article about it. Doesn't work that way.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:59, May 28, 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. It's more than a transliteration or a dictionary definition, it's a concept. For example, a very quick search yields this: [1] usage - clearly as an independent concept.radek (talk) 20:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Excellent, so let's rewrite it about the concept of "derzhava". But if it stays written like a dictionary definition, it should go, at least over to Wiktionary. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick google books search for any similar term/concept (e.g., narod, samoderzhaviye, otechestvo, rodina...) would yield similar results. This does not automatically make these words English, however. In a work explaining a concept it is only natural to transliterate the original Russian word for clarification, to eliminate ambiguity, or to meet the needs of the specialists. When a concept is explained in many academic works, it eventually enters the English language as a loanword (e.g., glasnost, intelligentsia, oblast...), but until that happens it remains just a transliteration used for convenience. We, the Wikipedians, are not in a position to determine what is and what is not "good enough" to become a new loanword; we are supposed to be guided by existing reference sources to make a distinction. The term "derzhava" does not pass muster, no matter how much details we stuff into the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:37, May 28, 2009 (UTC)

• If the term is indeed widely used in political literature, that literature could be described here. As it currently stands, however, this page is little more than a dictionary definition, with links to a couple of usage examples. I say re-write it to be descriptive and explanatory of the concept, its history and contemporary usage, or else delete. Cnilep (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, Pavel Baev writes in his book The Russian Army in a time of troubles writes: "The Russian word derzhava, meaning a proud state (but not exactly 'great power' since the equivalent is velikaya derzhava), has become the central notion for the self-assertive and national-patriotic course. Its advocates are duly called derzhavniki". This central notion that Baev speaks of has seen expression in the formation of political movements such as Rutskoi's radical nationalist party "Derzhava", as these books indicate [2] --Martintg (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Ladies and gentlemen, sorry to interrupt, but I have to call a WP:SPADE here. Bottom line, this article is currently a dictionary definition, which we almost all agree does not belong on Wikipedia. He or she who wants the article to be about some grander concept is welcome to get to work. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have said this several times already above, are you going to repeat this every time someone votes "Keep"? :) --Martintg (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do sound like a broken record don't I? :) The point I'm trying to get across is that I'm hearing all this about how "derzhava" is an important ideological concept, therefore the article should be kept. However, the article in its current form does not go into "derzhava" in any greater detail than a dictionary definition - thus qualifying it for deletion. I'd be all for keeping the article if it were reworked into an expansive explanation of this "central notion for the self-assertive and national-patrotic course." In fact, I would be fascinated to read it. BUT... I'm going to stop repeating myself. :) Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 03:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a relief :) It is apparent that this article can be reworked into an expansive explanation of this "central notion for the self-assertive and national-patrotic course." Clearly the article is a stub in need of expansion. We don't normally go deleting stubs, nor can one expect a stub to be expanded during the course of an AfD debate. --Martintg (talk) 07:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a stub and an article that simply does not belong as is. If an article doesn't belong, it should be deleted. Any willing editor is welcome to work on improving the article offline or in his/her userspace if/when it is deleted, and can then move it back to the main encyclopedia when it is "ready for primetime." I've seen this done may times. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 13:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it can be found in English books.Biophys (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  A great number of different words can be found in English books. We don't have an article for each of them because, as already pointed out above, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 03:07, May 29, 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Offliner (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:NOTDICTIONARY. What next? "Shapka is Russian word meaning hat..." "Sapogi is the Russian word meaning high boots..."? This is not encyclopedic material.DonaldDuck (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You forgot vodka, vobla and pravda. It would be pretty absurd to claim that NOTDICTIONARY requires deleting all of those merely because they're Russian words. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not forget "vodka", which is listed in every English dictionary one would care to consult, or "Pravda", which is a proper noun (a newspaper title). I would have to double-check if "vobla" is included—if it is not, it should go the way of "telogreika" and "derzhava".—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:02, June 1, 2009 (UTC)

• Funny that you mention shapka... There's also telogreika and possibly a bunch of other stuff that does not belong.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:51, June 1, 2009 (UTC)

• delete. Dicdef expanded with speculations based on an arbitary coatrack of references: brief google search shows that the concept of "great state" allegedly attrubuted to the word "derzhava" in fact corresponds to the expression "velikaya dzerzhava", which means in English, guess what? ... "great state". There is no evidence that concept "derzhava" is discussed in English politology/kremlinology. Mukadderat (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (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.