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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gyi[edit]

Gyi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A random honorific particle in Burmese does not need its own Wikipedia page. Ogress smash! 20:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Wikipedia policy. Articles without RS are not deleted for this reason. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimandia It's not policy, but it's one prominent editing philosophy, one that Jimbo Wales endorses: Wikipedia:No reliable sources, no verifiability, no article.
I can't see how you might think it's not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. It's just as "random" as any other honorific. However, given that the page has very little substantial content, I would support it being merged to Burmese names. Pishcal — ♣ 02:26, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pishcal I think it is not suitable for inclusion because it's a Burmese language honorific particle, not an English language one, and it has the sole meaning [honorific+]. Good for Burmese learners, not encyclopedic. I'd perhaps be more impressed if it showed up in citations anywhere, otherwise, like u maung and other such names/titles, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in Burmese names. Ogress smash! 07:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia gives NO preference to English or any other language! Language and culture are irrelevant to determining notability, and claiming such a thing is counter to WP:NPOV. —МандичкаYO 😜 07:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are confusing bias with "This is the English Wikipedia. Is this term notable for the English Wikipedia?" The latter is a question we ask ourselves constantly when dealing with non-English sources. There's a Chinese word that is used to describe the action you make when grinding traditional ink; it does not appear in the English Wikipedia because it is not notable. Ogress smash! 07:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To more clearly tie this point in with policy, see WP:NAD. If the only content on this page is a definition and it fulfills the same purpose as another word (such as "sir" in English), then the articles should be merged. In particular, if a single source were uncovered that supported this word's existence, then it could merge with Honorific, which is where we list every other honorific on Wikipedia. WP:NAD specifically states we do not need a new article for every different word that means the same thing. ~ RobTalk 06:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that a notable term with no sources is indistinguishable from a made up term with no sources. This is why WP:V is policy. ~ RobTalk 20:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word itself has own meaning, it can stand alone as single word but in Title used as combined, depending on senior rank professional career of the person that's title "Gyi" is added and combined with his/her job's title as honorable or great person, it is like foods without salts without that word also hard to make it high rank person, so it is necessary Title term in Burmese. Even current no.1 highest chief of Myanmar armed Forces need "Gyi" Title as to define high senior general ( e.g: western version equivalent two stars General doesn't have "Gyi" title but it starts from 3 stars to above) Min Aung Hlaing is equal 5 stars rank as "Bogyokehmugyi" , Gyi title makes a lot different to differentiate between in Burmese style from junior official person to Senior, junior person normally doesn't have " Gyi" title and is is widely used many cases in Myanmar cultures. e.g: If a foreigner want to see a big doctor such as Specialist or higher degree doctor then he needs to say "Sayawongyi" but if he says "Sayawon" then it may be refer as normal MBBS doctor, that's much different even for doctor Titles. yes, it combined with front words phrase as word Gyi word place the back word in the meantime the front Title may be changing another terms to make different job careers of persons but "Gyi" word keep still and doesn't change to make high rank or great person. Why words combined? because it is Style, just Burmese Style of usages, like some books may start from back to front or some written from right to left but we can't against them because it is their styles and own cultures. "Gyi" term can become both noun in alone and/or also adjective when front words combined but it is really need for Burmese and without "Gyi" title it will have problem in define in society to ranking persons therefore it is too important, in Kingdom era was also "Sitthugyi" as General of armed forces, current era Thagyi as no.1 head of Village, ship, SayadawGyi -the most or much senior monk( many cases there is only one person who is head leader of whole monasteries no matter there are many normal monks Sayadaws there as 100 or 200 numbers inside, some centres have few SayadawGyi. Like, it may be better if we can live without Oxygen air but we have to breath because we need it. "Gyi" Title is combined with front job titles but we need it. Combined as last words in Burmese " Style Title" because one would be mistaken with another who is actual chief/ in-charge/ no.1 of organizations, armed forces, religious teams, authorities, leaders, politics, high authorities . Again, if used "Gyi" alone as noun for front of high ranking titles then you may not know what his specialty job to recognize it and combined Title for that is in "Burmese style" but without also can't, it is notable enough for widely use well-known in Myanmar so we should keep on Wiki. Myo007 20:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You already noted that your stance was a Keep above. Please do not comment more than once on a nomination listing Keep/Delete, because this can makes it more difficult to determine what the consensus is. If you have additional comments, you're certainly welcome to make them, but please do so without prefacing your statement with Keep/Delete. Thanks. ~ RobTalk 11:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've noted why the word is a good dictionary entry, but not why it's worthy of a separate encyclopedia entry. Quoting from WP:NAD, "Articles whose titles are different words for the same thing ... are duplicate articles that should be merged." Burmese honorifics is about the same thing, so it should be merged (which it already is). Additionally, WP:GNG requires "significant coverage" in sources. All sources for this article mention it briefly at best, with no substantial coverage. I believe you're misunderstanding the policies, as you're saying things that are perfectly true, but do not support this article's inclusion in the wiki based on WP:NAD and WP:GNG. ~ RobTalk 11:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I just edited now. Myo007 21:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2015 (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.
More