Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of Curitiba

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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of Curitiba[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology. Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author's own WP:SYNTH. For example, they reference the presence of Guarani words in a 1639 Guarani-Spanish dictionary, and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city's name, without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions. This is just one example; there are many others. All in all, there is very little of value in the article that meets Wikipedia's standards, and since the subject of the article already has its own section at Curitiba#Etymology, there is no reason for a stand alone page on the matter, especially one of such poor quality. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Brusquedandelion (talk) 22:45, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Brusquedandelion (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep. First and foremost, let’s break it down… The nominator’s arguments do not hold up in any way and merely reveal that they did not even check the sources, the minimum expected of a Wikipedia editor. I did not engage in WP:SYNTH anywhere in the article; I simply referenced primary sources that had already been published by reliable sources, which is permitted, as stated here: “Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia”. You may wonder which reliable source published this. Simply reading the article and checking the sources would answer that question. It was written by Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues, arguably the most prolific linguist of Brazilian indigenous languages in the last century! So, let’s proceed…
N Duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology – False.

N Furthermore, the article as it stands largely appears to consist of the main author’s own WP:SYNTH – Exactly! “Appears” is the word! Because it only appears to be the case, but it is not, revealing your carelessness in consulting the sources and an unwarranted eagerness to delete an article on a subject in which you have no interest and have never shown interest, as evidenced by your editing pattern.

N and then use that information to speculate about the etymology of the city’s name – I didn’t. Aryon Dall’Igna Rodrigues did. And he was even recognized by the Enciclopédia dos Municípios Brasileiros for this; it’s in the article, read that source!

N without ever citing a reliable secondary source that arrives at the same sort of conclusions – Simply false. Again…

N This is just one example; there are many others – It’s simply false, as previously stated. So try to cite a real example.

Finally, I would like to make it clear that the nominator does not speak Portuguese, as evidenced on their user page, and all the sources are in Portuguese. Although this is not a barrier to nominating articles for deletion, it is interesting to note all the carelessness behind the opening of this RfD. I had never seen this user before… Inviting Bageense, who is interested in Tupi–Guarani languages and does speak Portuguese, and DAR7, who was the creator of the original article the Portuguese-language Wikipedia and for whom I created this article and even licensed it under CC0 (and who also speaks Portuguese). RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'd like to note that the main reason why this article should not exist is because it is a duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology. The quality of the article, as mentioned in my original post, was merely a secondary reason. With regards to this main point, you simply deny that the article is a duplicate of Curitiba#Etymology without any reasoning, just a one-word declaration that it is "False." But it should surprise no one that you expend no effort refuting my point: my claim was not refutable, it is patently and obviously true. Even a child could tell you the topic of Curitiba#Etymology and Etymology of Curitiba is one and the same. What's more, you even confirmed that you believe this by editing Curitiba#Etymology to refer readers to Etymology of Curitiba via a {{main}} template!

To be clear, I am not claiming the contents of the article are identical to the contents of Curitiba#Etymology. This is obviously false; anyone could tell you they do not consist of identical words in an identical order. I am claiming that the subjects of the article Etymology of Curitiba and the Curitiba#Etymology are the same: they are both (intended to be) about the etymology of the name of the city of Curitiba.

Thus, if you wish to make contributions to Wikipedia regarding the topic of the etymology of this city's name, there is already a perfectly good place to do so: Curitiba#Etymology. Any content the community feels is salvageable can go there.

Second, while I do not feel this is actually particularly germane to the discussion at hand, I have studied Portuguese in the past and while my abilities are definitely rusty as I do not get much practice with it any more, I can still read Portuguese with well over 95% passive comprehension (~100% with occasional dictionary use), and since I use Spanish daily and study French regularly, it has not been hard to maintain such passive skills, even though I do not feel comfortable speaking or writing in Portuguese. I don't list every language I have experience with on my page, only ones that I am currently, actively studying or consider myself extremely proficient to fluent in. I spent an appropriate amount of time looking at your sources before coming to my conclusions, and I stand by them. Brusquedandelion (talk) 08:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The etymology of the city's name is object of controversy, and can't be easily summarized in a brief section in the article about the city. If we were to move all this content to Curitiba#Etymology, that'd result in undue weight, since the article is quite long (and could be even longer). So, no, the article is not a duplication of what is in Curitiba#Etymology: just compare the size of both texts. --Bageense^(disc.) 13:38, 12 February 2024 (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.