Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liturgical Romanian

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. Hut 8.5 07:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liturgical Romanian

Liturgical Romanian (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is quite a mess, as it's not clear what it talks about, mixing several topics, including history of Christianity in Romania and etymology of some words. First of all, there is no such thing as a Liturgical Romanian language. There have been many early translations of the Bible or other religious texts, but each of them used a certain dialect (for example, Textele maramureşene used a northern dialect (with a characteristic rhotacisation of n), while Coresi's writings used the Wallachian dialect. Currently, the Bible translation is based on Standard Romanian. The article, however, talks about the etymology of the church words and even this it does wrongly and with a lot of original research, including some rather strange claims, such as that Romanian Christianity was based on the Gallic ritual. The list of Latin/Slavic words (itself original research) is also wrong, as some Latin words (such as orologiu) are 19th century borrowings. bogdan 11:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Good article. 203.220.107.23 11:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Prose is pretty good, but there's no sources in either this or the original Romanian article, and it looks like a load of OR. This is the kind of stuff that happens when you don't source anything. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original research from top to bottom. No source is cited because there are no sources to cite: this article is entirely the product of fantasy. Dahn 11:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

*Merge or Keep I understand the Romanian writer's idea for making the article-- as a translation, it's one of those "over your head" articles that most Wikipedians aren't interested in, let alone would understand. In this case, it's about linguistics rather than chemistry or classical music. Just as there are terms in the King James Version that aren't used in modern English (begat, draught, gird, etc.), there are archaic terms not used in the Romanian language. My suggestion to the author is to build an article around this one about Biblia Sinodală or Biblia de la Bucureşti, which were the equivalent of KJV in Romanian Orthodox churches. Mandsford 11:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: the problem, Mandsford, is that the information in this article is false, in both generic and detailed terms. Bogdangiusca pointed to the exact problems in his original comment: in short, there is no "liturgical Romanian". As a matter of fact, we already have an article on Biblia de la Bucureşti. Dahn 13:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete after salvage. You've persuaded me. As long as there's an article about the 1688 Bible, any truthful information can be added to it. I can't believe that everything in ro:Româna liturgică, from the Romanian Wikipedia, is false. From what I understand, the Romanian language has Romance and Slavic roots, and there are some words that aren't used 320 years later. Mandsford 17:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment The main differences between the Bible of 1688 and other Romanian versions are in reference to inaccuracies in translation - or, at least, so said Gala Galaction, who was the next person to translate the Bible. The language of that text is indeed antiquated, in both its usage of both Latin and Slavic words, but: it is not unintelligible (an has been partly revived in lay poetry of the 20th century), the studies on the exact differences between the two sets of Romanian seem to be scarce and centered on details, and nothing of what this article is about is backed by scholarly works. Furthermore, the Bible of 1688 was published in Wallachia for the use of the local Orthodox church, whereas the article implies that the language in Transylvania is proof of direct Latin influence - when, in fact, the words cited may just as well be the result of Counterreformation; i.e.: the language used may have been influenced by the Catholic clergy, and present only with the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic populace. Of the words mentioned in the article, only a few may actually appear in the original Orthodox Bible (and services). Mixing criteria in this manner is anti-scientific. Dahn 08:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete OR. Only google results except wikipedia&mirrors are 2 forums in english, and one blog in romanian. Anonimu 14:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is entirely OR, but it could have a mention in Romanian. NF24^{(radio me!}_{Editor review)} 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - a notable topic, but unfortunately the conclusions drawn in the article are unverifiable by wikipedia. No independent traces of the term in google. Although the history of entrance of Romanian language into liturgy has been discussed in academia. `'Míkka 17:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. A good topic but the article is OR. Lisa the Sociopath 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

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.