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. There appears to be no argument that the material here is in need of, at the very least, some editorial help. Renaming or merging this information elsewhere has emerged as a potential compromise as well, and should be considered, but at this time there appears to be little need to do so. Shereth 20:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moldovenism[edit]

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

The term has nothing to do with the content of the article. "Moldovenism" in Romanian language simply means "linguistic particularity characteristic to the language of the Moldovans" (Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian language) or "Moldavian word/idom" (Romanian-English Dictionary), and this is the only meaning that can be found in the results of Google Book Search [1]. The results are mostly Romanian, with two exception, that are in German, but us the term the same meaning as in Romanian, and not the one presented in the Wikipedia article. The meaning used in Wikipedia can be found in only one nonscholarly source, the one already present in the article, and outside Wikipedia the novel meaning is only used in blogs, forums, Romanian tabloids and nationalist newspapers, as well as in the pro-Romanian press of Moldova. This clearly violates WP:Notability, WP:Undue, WP:Neologism, and its content violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:SOAP. The only solution is to delete it.

First, I must note that most of the "sources" are from pro-Romanian authors, articles by whom have a strong anti-Moldovan bias, or represent the POV of pro-Romanian organizations. The "report" is a paper by an unnotable organization, and, as the disclaimer put it, the views in that "report" are not assumed by the UNHCR. The author doesn't hide the fact that she is against the Moldovan constitutional order.[2] The reports from NYU Law School make it clear that this term is used by one political party of Moldova (which not surprisingly is a pro-Romanian one, succesor to a violent nationalist organization of the early 90s). Must I remind you that we're not here to promote a certain political agenda? The "paper" from the University of Maryland is not even worth mentioning, since it's only a draft, and it fails the requirements of WP:RS. And, moreover, all use quotation marks when talking mentioning the term, a sign this is a neologism unassumed by the authors. So it clearly fails WP:Notability, WP:Undue and WP:Neologism. As for its content...Xasha (talk) 01:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The UNHCR did commission that report, and as the footnotes indicate, the term is present in other scholarly papers as well. That Miss Gribincea happens to support Moldova's reunification with Romania is laudable, but also immaterial to her ability to write impartially on the subject for a UN agency. 2. The PPCD does indeed use the term, but it's not just "one party" - it's the third-largest party, the most vocal opposition party. And your accusation that the Moldovan Popular Front was a "violent nationalist organization" is baseless, libellous and contemptuous. 3. I'm not so sure it's a draft; in any case, it's by a history professor. So the term is used, fairly widely, and yes, quotation marks are used because it's still fairly new, but it does appear in academic literature and the press, so it's a noteworthy subject. Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing with us the real reason why you support this fringe use of a legitimate Romanian term ("Moldavian word"): you are against the Moldovan constitutional order. Probably it's common for "impartial" authors to cite their own works to talk about a term unused outside Romanian nationalist media. As for that under 10% party, yes: it's predecessor was nationalist and violent, and that it was the Moldovan citizens eliminated it from the political scene. A draft is not peer-reviewed. He could have written anything in it. It's even less relevant than tabloids, that at least in theory have an editorial board to review content. Please read WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not a tool to spread fringe political opinions, especially propaganda against the very existence of an UN member state.Xasha (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Kindly refrain from speculating on the "real reason" for my comment. If you eliminate the clause, nay the sentence beginning "That Miss Gribincea...", you still have a comprehensive policy-based argument for keeping the article. 2. 9% is not bad in a supposedly multi-party system (the PNC even took office with 9%), and it is still very much on the scene; Iurie Roşca is not exactly an unknown. And I'm sorry, while the FPM was nationalist (nothing wrong with that, ipso facto), your accusation that his group was "violent" remains unsubstantiated (and anyway has nothing to do with this discussion). 3. A professor doesn't normally publish just anything, even in draft form: he has a reputation to defend. 4. Being a UN member isn't that great an honour: so are North Korea and Iran (the first of which should unite with South Korea; the second, somehow have its rulers eliminated from the scene). But that's not the point: the point is that this term, whether you like it or not, exists, and is used, not only by academics, but also by certain segments of the press. Its use is wide enough to merit an article, despite your personal disdain for it. And by the way, if being "against the very existence of an UN member state" will have your article taken away, there go Shining Path, FARC, UNITA, Saddam Hussein, Leonid Brezhnev... Biruitorul Talk 13:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made your real reasons clear to anybody. You can prattle all you want now.Xasha (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:AGF and WP:CIV. My "real reasons" are that "the term is used, fairly widely ... it does appear in academic literature and the press, so it's a noteworthy subject" - kindly refrain from further speculation. And also, kindly remain civil and do not accuse me of "prattling" or pursuing some sinister agenda beyond mere application of Wikipedia policy. Biruitorul Talk 16:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Moldovanism. There are English-language scholarly sources which use the word with this meaning: (google books), so it's not a neologism. bogdan (talk) 13:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All use quotation marks, so its a neologism and they clealry don't accept it as an English concept. Unless you want to rename it to "Moldovanism".Xasha (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the manual of style says that we should exclude the quotation marks from the article name, even when they should be used. bogdan (talk) 17:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ever heard of WP:RS? Xasha (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may not like Timpul, but that doesn't make it unreliable. Biruitorul Talk 22:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to use Timpul. See the Google Books has on it:
No explanation is given. Moreover, the term is used in quotation marks even in the index !!! (WP:NEOLOGISM)
Uses it with a meaning unrelated to the article, as the author explains.
It's not available and we can't say if the meaning is the same as the Wikipedia article or another.
The same.
The same. No explanation whatsoever.
The same, although the context seem to refer to the supression of Moldovan identity by the Romanians.
Is used in the name of a newspaper article, and we don't know for what it is quoted (could be very well to prove that the term is used in nationalist media)
The same here.
Unavailable, unless you bought the book or you are a crystal ball.

bogdan (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As seen from above, the only source that explains the term uses it in an unrelated way. And a lot of these books are not viewable, meaning that Moldovanism could refer to anything. Also, you seem to ignore the contetn of the article which is just an indiscriminate collection of facts and opinions . Per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR, that has got to go. Otherwise I see no reason for not having an article about the dogs on Mars. This is a clear example of tentedntious editing and deceitful use of otherwise reliable sources. The truly worrisome fact is that this comes from an administrator.Xasha (talk) 00:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said: "Unavailable, unless you bought the book". Published book is a reliable source. Same the rest of sources.Biophys (talk) 04:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Calling a book a source just because it mentions the term "Moldovans" (once? twice? we don't know!!!), without knowing how they use it, is a severe abuse of WP:V. As I explained in my original rationale, "Moldovenism"/"Moldovanism" has a totally unrelated meaning, according to Romanian dictionaries and Romanian-English bilingual ones. See my example in the previous post to see how easy we could create absurd topics just because they appear in GBook search results.Xasha (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Andyjsmith's previous comment is not only misleading, but may be also qualified as a banal lie. As described above, the UNHCR had explicitely declared itself non responsible for the report, which was in fact made by an unknown organisation and not UNHCR at all!!! I do not think it is a part of any edit war, if you see one, please explain. So, again, I kindly submit, delet this original research, lacking basic notability criteria of Wikipedia--Moldopodotalk 17:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - Moldopodo has now been indef blocked for disruption. andy (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He is actually on a one-month block at the moment.Xasha (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2008 (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