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 keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sisu[edit]

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

Dicdef, full of original research and trivia. The only source is this, which is an opinion piece. I see no way that this could be expanded beyond a dictionary definition. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much more treatment of the term would be required for an encyclopedia entry. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NAD. Simply writing at length about a word that can be explained in a single sentence isn't notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nominator. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: First of all, it is already a stub, not a dicdef, see WP:STUB. Secondly, I think it is a fairly unique term, therefore passes WP:N. This can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added several quotes and reliable cites. Note also that there are paralllel articles in several languages. Please close this afd and keep the article. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per excellent improvements by Bearian. Those rescuing articles in this way show a lot of sisu. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Improvements have done a great job. Well done! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While this is now of a good quality, it's a good quality dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia article. Wiktionary really needs to have this sort of depth available in it's definitions. Definitions of words and extensive discussion of usage don't belong in an encyclopedia. If Wiktionary can't accommodate this I wouldn't be happy to see it simply deleted, but a situation where Wiktionary has brief concise dictionary definitions and Wikipedia has detailed, verbose dictionary defintions of the same words is far from ideal.--Michig (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you grasp the differences between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. To quote:

Wikipedia Articles are about: a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote. The article octopus is about the animal: its physiology, its use as food, its scientific classification, and so forth. the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote. ... Wiktionary [is about]: The article octopus is about the word "octopus": its part of speech, its pluralizations, its usage, its etymology, its translations into other languages, and so forth.

— WP:NAD

The Sisu article describes in detail what it is about denote what it's about, its importance to the culture of Finland as well as to the Michigan, how it has been used, the historical and political context, etc. Bearian (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should also read User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words, which essentially states that good articles about words, are acceptable and we'll take them. Also, see the general notability guideline. I think sisu passes both. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words is a personal essay and has no bearing here. The quote from WP:NAD above only reinforces the view that this article doesn't belong here; Wikipedia has articles about "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing", Wiktionary has entries covering "the actual words or idioms in their title and all the things it can denote". This article is about a word - it falls into the latter category.--Michig (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have added some sourced encyclopedic information to the article, with quotes from good sources dating from 1940 and 2004. A quick look at the Google Scholar/News and other search engines will demonstrate to reasonable and objective editors that much more sourced information does exist. This has the real potential to become a DYK article within days, and a good article as well. Your arguments are quite weak. Bearian (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments are based on policy, not some idea that this is a "notable word". Please stick to discussion of the topic at hand rather than suggesting that only editors that agree with you are "reasonable and objective", and dismissing other arguments as "quite weak". Perhaps some policy-based argument for keeping would be a good idea.--Michig (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep more than a dicdef. Berian is reliable about WP policy; without his needing to quote the abbreviations, I understand him to mean that the policy is a/that WP is a comprehensive encyclopedia. b/ that the article does not fail the test of NOT DICTIONARY. DGG (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DGG. Sisu is more than a mere word, but the concept of "Finnishness", if you will. It was even lampooned in All in the Timing. To denote something is imply it has a proper place in an encyclopedia. WP has plenty of space to be more comprehensive. While sisu is not used so much in English today, 30 or 50 or 70 years ago, everyone knew what it meant - so much so that periodicals from 1940 to 1963 could use "Sisu again" or "she has sisu" in headlines and yet not have to define it explicitly in the lede. Go ask your grandparents what it means. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I want to know what the word means, I'll look in a dictionary. That's what they're for.--Michig (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looks like a nice exposition of a particular cultural and anthropological feature. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. The term warrants an article and the recent additions have improved it (but of course there are still much to be written about the term and its cultural meaning. --MoRsE (talk) 17:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep due to improvements by Bearian. TheLeftorium 21:23, 29 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.