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. Moves, merges and redirects can be discussed editorially, as there's no consensus to do any of the three from this debate. Daniel 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estophilia[edit]

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

This article was originally speedy-deleted as a neologism. DRV overturned, since that rationale is not among the CSD, and the article is sourced, as well, rebutting that belief. Still, weak delete, as there is not yet evidence of wide currency or encyclopedic notability. Xoloz 15:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Estonian national awakening, which goes into far more depth on the background. Move to [[Estophile]] per comment on sourcing below. Gordonofcartoon 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Gordonofcartoon. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Estophilia is a significant and notable topic in Estonian history. I draw your attention to the book reference: The History of Estonia, 2nd edition, by A. Maesalu, T. Lukas, T, Tannberg, et al [1] (ISBN 9985-2-0606-1) Quote from section beginning on page 167: Estophiles and the first Estonian intellectuals:

“

The growing interest in exotic and minority peoples in Europe launched the Estophile movement in Estonia. The Estophiles - Baltic Germans interested in Estonia - studied the Estonian language and culture, published fiction of considerable artistic level, newspapers, textbooks for schools, and founded various scientific societies.....

”

BTW, according to this book, the Estophile movement pre-dates and is distinct from the Estonian National Awakening which is detailed in a different section.

Another quote from Britannica online [2] :

“

Written literature began in the so-called Estophile period (c. 1750–1840) with moral tales and manuals written by Balto-German enthusiasts for the native language and culture.

”

Note that the Estonian national awakening started around 1850, so the Estophilia period predates it by 100 years, a significant period outside the scope of Estonian national awakening. Also see the following sources:

• Online Encyclopedia reference, Estophilia period 1710-1850: [3]
• Online Encyclopedia reference, National awakening period 1850-1917: [4]
• Book reference: [5]

Additionally here is a list of 19 books that mentions "Estophile" [6], the earliest english book in the list was published in 1947, the earliest German book in the list was published in 1901. So it is definitely not a neologism.

Also note too that the original stub of Estonian national awakening [7] was subject to an AfD, due to the nominator's ignorance of Estonian History [8]. As you can see, this was eventually developed into a reasonable article, just as this notable article will be too. Martintg 21:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken: except that the referenced term is "Estophile". The term "Estophilia" is rare to the point of neologism, plus making it sound like some kind of paraphilia, and that's how the article currently comes on. Call the article "Estophile", which is the dominant sourced form of the term, and go straight to the context of the Balto-German Estophile period, and I'd agree with you. I've edited the article accordingly. Gordonofcartoon 21:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your point about it sounding like some kind of paraphilia, I am not 100 percent convinced that "Estophilia" is neologism, since it shares the same root as "Estophile". "Estophile" refers to the individual, while "Estophilia" is the condition and "Estophilic" is the adjective. In any case, the plural form "Estophiles" would be better than "Estophile" as a title Martintg 01:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the etymological relationship, the "phile" form predominates in sources and has longer-standing currency. Gordonofcartoon 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The -phile is the person and the -philia is the activity. This article is more than just about the people, it is also about their activities. Some sources do mention "Estophilia", including the link to Estonica you updated on the article page. Clearly it is referring to the activity. Martintg 03:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in your personal analysis of the etymology; I'm going by the term that the majority of the sources use. Here are the ratios for "Estophilia"/"Estophile"/"Estophiles" from Google hits. Google Books: 2/20/19. Google Scholar: 0/3/8. Main Google: 36/346/125. "Estophilia" is a minority usage, and the article title should reflect the predominant term relating to the topic. Gordonofcartoon 13:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could also indicate that a proportion of items are related to individual Estophiles, while another proportion are related to the concept and activities of Estophilia in general. Martintg 22:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Stay away from the Estonians, you pervert. ~ Infrangible 21:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love the Wikihumour, don't give up your day job. You want to provide a more meaningful comment? Martintg 21:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• comment could someone please explain the box below? Personally, I think that afds shouln't be crawled at all, but that's a policy question--and I do not see how hiding them is a way to do it--or even just what is being hidden. DGG (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved it into the "Society" category. Martintg 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Nothing to do with this nomination, someone just couldn't do a proper second nomination and so the blanked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moshe Aryeh Friedman was transcluded. --Derlay 23:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Estophile. -- Petri Krohn 02:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand English is not your first language, but if you want to move to Estophile, Estophiles would be a better choice, since there were more than one. Martintg 02:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, condescending remark. For my money, Petri Krohn seems to be able to get by in English (see Understatement) but then what do I know, it's not my first language either. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style, naming conventions, here: "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that noun is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors or trousers)." Italics in original. Bishonen | talk 11:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Bishonen, reading int to things too deeply again? Do you know all the forms of all the words in English and their proper usage? I rate my English pretty good but still cant say that. As native speaker he does have the right do doubt the judgment of a nonnative speaker without being accused of putting someone down.--Alexia Death 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forms? My post wasn't about forms. It was about Petri Krohn being right, per WP:MOS, and about the native speaker therefore lacking a basis for his condescension. My post was also, in a modest way, helpful, in that I had looked for and found the relevant passage in WP:MOS, and gave a link to it. See the difference compared to your post? I'd advise against posting in these discussions just for the purpose of attacking other editors. It fails the usefulness test and wastes peope's time. I'll stop before I do the same. Bishonen | talk 20:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep Above cites sources are IMO sufficient to show this as a sufficiently widely used term that a separate aricel is IMO warrented. Whether to move to a different form of the word is an editorial choice that can always be discussed on the talk page, no need for an AfD to decide that point. Whichever form is finally chosen, create redirects for the other form as each is a plausisble search target (no need for a redir from the plurarl form per the MoS). DES ^(talk) 15:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as is at current title. It is a notable concept as a movement and a mindframe. I was a trend, a movement, with its notable and non notable Estophiles. Estophile would be a suitable redirect to Estophilia section about notabe estophiles, but moving would change the focus and hamper usage/linking clarity in articles... Estophies would move focus to people not the phenomena, but there were non-notoable Estophiles, estophile wold be a dictionary term not sutable for decribing a larger frame. Estophilia is a suitable title, under witch the the explanation of the term Estophile and mentions of notable estophiles fit.--Alexia Death 19:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article was originally speedily deleted as a retaliatory action by Neil, and the deletion review has made it quite obvious that this deletion had no basis in Wikipedia policy. This AFD has been created merely to formalise this. Consequelly, I expect everybody familiar with the history of the article, or the history of the movement, vote this way. Digwuren 20:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable topic and important link in Estonian history. Although I don't oppose the move to Estophile either, as the article seems to concentrate more on Estophiles more than the phenomena of estophilia itself. Suva 02:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If there is Russophilia, why can not be Estophilia?Biophys 06:21, 28 July 2007 (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.