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. This applies to the current unsourced one-sentence stub, which reads in full: "Cyrillization of German refers to any system of transcription or transliteration of German language text using the Cyrillic script", or the previous unsourced/OR content. It is without prejudice to a sourced recreation; but any such recreation can of course be challenged again at AfD. Sandstein 09:26, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrillization of German[edit]

Cyrillization of German (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)

Not sure if this is a topic here, could not find any sources indicating such a system ever existed. Created by a known disruptive editor (see this ANI thread) and was subsequently TNT'd, however it still does not meet WP:GNG or WP:V. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not a question of notability (there are plenty of souces about the systems for transliterating German names into languages that use the Cyrillic script), it's a question of topic structure: do we want to have separate articles about each system or language, or should we cover them all in a single umbrella article? It's more practical to have a single article and hence keep this, nevermind how minimal its content happens to be at present. – Uanfala (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Cyrillization. @Uanfala: I agree with your assessment, but I don't understand your suggestion to keep this article. Can you clarify? Daask (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if it's a topic on which we would ultimately prefer to have a proper article, then I don't see a particular benefit in deleting the one-sentence stub we've got at the moment. It's easier to expand an existing article than to create a new one, especially for new users. – Uanfala (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The Cyrillization article is little more than a directory of articles on the various languages. Some of them (e.g. Korean and Japanese) have a specific system that may be widely accepted, but German, apparently, does not: the hoax tag on the article is remnant of an earlier version which apparently represents some guy on the internet's ideas, but there's no mention of any specific system which enjoys any official approval. So redirecting is just going to result int he redirect getting deleted because the main article doesn't actually say anything about the subject. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete: This page is an inaccurate dicdef of an SOP. "Cyrillisation" means the process of converting something to Cyrillic; but this refers to a system or systems for doing the process. Then this is SOP ("sum of parts"): for any language, Chinese, Thai, Swahili, whatever, you could generate a copy with "German" replaced by the new language. This sort of thing (and there are editors doing it) does not improve Wikipedia. The Cyrillicisation article could have a section on German, and if this became big enough it could be a separate article. Imaginatorium (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete As above, a broad concept that is not well defined enough/notable to substantiate an article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per all of the observations above. Wikipedia is not 'stuff we make up'. Languages can be transliterated from one script to another (including some scholarly and teaching texts) but, even if it were verifiable, it doesn't pass the "other stuff" test. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: de.WP has a decently-comprehensive article on this (or at least, on an adjacent topic), de:Deutsch-russische Transkription, with an explanation of who developed the standard system, and a table of it. Although the current en.WP article is a stub created by a problematic editor, I think it (or, an article on transcription of German into Russian Cyrillic) could be brought up to the same level as Cyrillization of French and other similar articles we have. I will set about translating the de.WP article into English soon (and trying to find more sources: I notice the de.WP article is short on them), probably as a userspace draft so you all can decide whether it should supplant this stub or go to a different title like Transliteration of German into Russian or something (tying in to Uanfala's question of whether we want to document all the systems of Cyrillization in one article, or separate them by which language German is being transcribed into). -sche (talk) 20:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia article you've pointed to has only one form of transcription originally devised in 1969. The Cyrillization of French article is essentially bang in the middle of the same boat of WP:NOR and WP:OSE as this article, and the Cyrillization of Korean has already been deleted. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ru.WP article has got more sources than the de.WP one, but it's not a great deal more detailed. If an article is created, I'd be willing to add a section about the official Bulgarian standard, provided that it's desired that the scope of the article should not be restricted to the German–Russian system/s. The sheer number of delete !votes would seem to suggest that such a desire is not present among the community (but then, I'm not sure I'm able to make sense of most of the "delete" arguments, as these seem to be more relevant to the fuzzy article at Cyrillization rather than the well-defined topic ostensibly under discussion). – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've put together a draft at User:-sche/Cyrillization of German. This documents the standard system devised by Rudzhero S. Giliarevski (ru) and Boris A. Starostin (ru) and revised by Dmitry I. Ermolovich (ru) and Irina S. Alexeyeva (ru). Uanfala, please feel free to add Bulgarian information to the draft, if you like. The delete votes seem to have been based on the fact that the current mainspace article is a stub created by a someone known for hoaxes, and to have been made at a time of assumption (now known to be incorrect) that there was no standard system comparable to the Kontsevich system for Cyrillization of Korean (which, contrary to comments above, is an existing article). I suggest that if the current stub is deleted, the more comprehensive and referenced userspace draft get its own discussion. -sche (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2018 (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.