Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malakia

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. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Malakia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article relies entirely on primary sources to create a dictionary entry which is thus entirely original research. WP:NAD, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH, and a host of other policies apply. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:13, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That said, the "IP-hopper's" version appears to be encyclopaedic so we could revert back to that: here. Not entirely checked it through yet, though, so it might also not be worth keeping — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Iadmc ♫^talk 19:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure, but where do we comment on this, here on this page or the talk page?WHEELER (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@WHEELER: Here. Comments about this deletion discussion should only be made here. More info about this discussion and its format is available at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Contributing_to_AfD_discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just did a Google search for <"Malakia" -wikipedia> and found out (on the very first page) that the Urban Dictionary defines it as "masturbation...slang word for semen...nonsense...an item considered worthless... a mistake, or (ironically and degradingly) a time-consuming non-productive action..."; this would seem to back this definition up; Strong's Concordance (of the Bible) defines it as "a disease or condition that weakens ("softens") the victim... an ailment that disables – 'a debilitating infirmity' causing the body to lose muscle" and another Bible site has a similar definition, and both of these appear to contradict the thesis at Malakia#Bible translations; it also happens to be a settlement on the island of Irakleio and a football team, Malakia FC. This and this do talk about effeminacy (which the "article" appears mostly to be about) but there seem to be a lot of possibilities out there... And still the "article" is entirely based on primary sources and possible synthesis of them at that. And actually the word as meaning effeminacy appears to be more closely related to Latin: here.

Either the article should be rewritten from secondary sources that actually say what the authors of this piece say—or that indeed say something else—or simply deleted. See also the ton of discussion about it on the talk page—and all the editors (except the dreaded "IP from St Petersburg", it would seem) appear to ignore the basic problem of a lack of third party sources. I write all this just in case anyone actually comes here from the article to have their say... to me it seems that someone has fixated on the "effeminacy/homosexuality" meaning and deliberately avoided discussing the other meanings and applications, except very briefly. Why? POV and OR and lack of V all at the same time! — Iadmc ♫^talk 21:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started this page as "Effeminancy"! The point of the article is about Effeminancy as a VICE. The other page on Wikipedia was about "being effeminate as a homosexual characteristic and is a good idea". That is not the original meaning of the term. There is NO secondary literature out there on this. I started this page for Classical/Biblical scholars to understand the meaning and use of the term in Classical antiquity---everybody else has it as a homosexual/sexual thing. The term "malakos" in the Greek just means soft and in classical meaning it had NO sexual connotations. It is in Aristotle's Virtues and Vices--"malakos" is a soft, weak, man. This is about understanding this term as it is used in the Bible to describe a particular vice in men. WHEELER (talk) 16:27, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WHEELER:Effeminacy is diabolically OR... I notice you removed the references to "malakos" from that article. Why? Perhaps you should have edited it to make the lack of sexual meaning clearer? Including modern commentaries, of course, which is precisely what I meant about your article (under discussion) not containing any WP:SECONDARY. That said, the ancients are secondary, I guess; we just need modern commentary as well to back up the claims and observations in the piece. Perhaps we should merge these two articles together again and go from there? — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add: I notice the vast majority of the edits after yours are either by IPs or now-blocked editors... It was moved way back when to "Malakia (effeminacy)" then to simply "Malakia". No one else that I can see in the history would be much interested in discussing the fate of this article as far as I can tell. OTOH, those editing Effeminacy might be interested, especially if we do consider merging. Therefore, pinging the most apparently relevant editors there, if they are interested: @Florian Blaschke:, @Flyer22 Reborn:, @Peripitus:, @Hyacinth:. (BTW, I do not mean this as canvassing, rather as trying to get interested parties involved to achieve a broader consensus. I have no idea what these other editors' opinions might be.) — Iadmc ♫^talk 09:53, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sin is a pretty common concept in European thought, one that will come up in discussions of European concepts of gender and strength/weakness. Hyacinth (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2017 (UTC) See: Kynodesme. 21:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm responding to the ping by Iadmc. Hmm, looking at this article, I'm not sure what to think, but, per WP:Primary sources, which is a policy (not simply a guideline), our articles should mainly be supported by secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources. Having an article based solely or primarily on primary sources can call into question the WP:Notability of the topic and can make it easy for WP:Original research to dominate the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish Iadmic leave things alone. Do NOT merge the two articles together. This is not "original research" meaning that making new conclusions not accepted/ordained by modern academia. What is in this article is about the continuity with Classical thought and Catholic morality. The First article does not address that. This article is purely a research aid. Leave it alone. I worked hard at this. This is why I hate wikipedia. People who have nothing else on their time and hands and go around and cause controversy. I actually did research, complete and whole to cover a topic important for Catholic ethics courses and biblical research. St. Thomas Aquinas's quote in this is perfect Secondary to back up what is meant in the classical quotes. Please leave this alone. This is why I no longer edit at Wikipedia. Endless arguments over nothing.WHEELER (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @WHEELER: I'm sorry but you misunderstand my use of the term "original research": you are using it in its modern academia meaning, I am using it in its Wikipedia meaning. Please see Wikipedia:No original research which works alongside Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. These are the three Core content policies upon which Wikipedia is based. Your work is indeed excellent and well-researched but belongs on another website altogether since it is your original research. The main points (sourced from WP:RSs) can be written into Effeminacy to give it a more balanced approach to the subject. As the situation stands we also have a content fork. Please read the policies and the guideline I have linked to the better understand my meaning. Thank you — Iadmc ♫^talk 22:04, 10 February 2017 (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.