Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jelping-Ja-Oyka

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jelping-Ja-Oyka

[edit]

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

Jelping-Ja-Oyka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this is a hoax article. I can find no source for Jelping-Ja-Oyka and the ones I did find use this article as a source. Additionally, the link listed in the article, aside from not looking reliable, does not even mention "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Article has been marked as unsourced since 2021. Jaguarnik (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax (unless a very deep one, several decades old) – rather just a case of an obscure topic in a language which does not use the latin alphabet for writing. The name(s), in Russian, seem to be 'Консыг-Ойка' and 'Ялпус-ойка'. Here's the Russian: wikipedia page for it. The source it uses is this (last column on page 545). Endlesspumpkin (talk) 20:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are linking to a figure that uses a completely different name. Konsyg-Oika and Yalpus-Oika are not the same thing as "Jelping-Ja-Oyka", that is the hoax. The source you provided does not list the name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Nor does that figure Konsyg-Oika apparently have anything to do with Mir-Susne-Hum as the article claims is the case for "Jelping-Ja-Oyka". Jaguarnik (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jelping-Ja-Oyka is how Alex Fantalov is transliterating the name, no? I'm not claiming him as some great authority (nor saying he's unreliable), but his page predates wikipedia, so it's certainly not the case that the information originated here. Endlesspumpkin (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has no basis in the text written on that site in Russian: "антагонистом Мир-Сусне-Хума был Консыг-Ойка - “Когтистый Старик”, дух Медведя. (The antagonist of Mir-Susne-Hum was Konsyg-Oyka - the "Old Man With Claws", spirit of bear.) Jelping-Ja-Oyka seems to be something invented by the translator. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this just shows that these two are clearly the same, no? And that "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" is just Fantalov's transliteration? This would be like deleting a page on "Akhilleus" because we can only find sources talking about "Achilles"; they're just different transliterations. – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does not. First, there is no indication that Alex Fantalov (or the site provided) is a reliable source. I've looked for who he is in both Russian and English and as far as I can tell he primarily works as an artist (the whole site is dedicated to his art). Second, the translation of that source is not good at all, there are multiple errors and additions that don't exist in the Russian original. The translation cannot be considered reliable. Third, "Akhilleus" and "Achilles" are far more similar to each other than "Konsyg-Oyka" and "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" are. The comparison does not work. Jaguarnik (talk) 08:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but I wouldn't suggest that Fantalov is a reliable source, nor that we ought to be citing him in the article, so his reliability or lack thereof isn't really important. All I was saying is that his website explains where the name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" is coming from; it's just Fantalov's transliteration of "Консыг-Ойки", which is the actual subject of the article, no matter which transliteration is used, and is the same figure referred to in the dictionary given above, so the figure clearly isn't a hoax. "Konsyg-Oyka" and "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" are both just transliterations of "Консыг-Ойки", just as "Akhilleus" and "Achilles" are both transliterations of "Ἀχιλλεύς", so the comparison is apt. Unless you're suggesting that "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" isn't Fantalov's transliteration of "Консыг-Ойки"? But the Russian, containing "Консыг-Ойки", is given just above. – Michael Aurel (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, you disagree with the wording of "hoax", so I won't insist that it's a hoax. But there's no clear evidence that "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" is truly part of any mythology and wasn't just made up by this one person. I could also write on some website that Achilles is also transliterated as "Panteleimon" and insist on making an article for "Panteleimon", but that wouldn't make it a valid transliteration because it's a completely different name with no basis in the original. The same way "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" isn't a valid transliteration of "Консыг-Ойка", because it's a completely different name with no evidence and no basis.
If there's enough coverage of "Konsyg-Oyka" then I don't mind moving the article and rewriting it, but I haven't been able to find enough coverage to be convinced that it passed WP:SIGCOV. Jaguarnik (talk) 12:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, we don't actually disagree on anything meaningful here. Unless I'm mischaracterising your position, we seem to agree on the following two points, which are really the only significant ones: we shouldn't have a page under the title "Jelping-Ja-Oyka", and the current page seems to have come from (though it has mangled things, due to a poor source) the actual figure of Konsyg-Oyka, who is deserving of encyclopedic coverage, assuming we have sourcing passing WP:SIGCOV. It is certainly somewhat mysterious as to how Fantalov gets the exact name "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" from "Консыг-Ойки", but this is surely the figure he's referring to, given the Russian directly above, and the existence of this figure in reliable sources ("Yalpus-Oika" and "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" also aren't worlds apart). We could argue about technicalities until the cows come home, though; moving and reworking the page is what I'm suggesting, and this just requires finding sourcing which passes WP:SIGCOV, which is probably time more usefully spent. – Michael Aurel (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the page should be moved then. But you agree that the actual mythological figure is the same, right? – Michael Aurel (talk) 23:51, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only if more reliable sources can be found. If it's just one paragraph in a dictionary I would delete the page. Jaguarnik (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, fair enough. I think Endlesspumpkin's point was just that the page is not a hoax. Now that we know it isn't, the question is one of WP:SIGCOV. I think I've found this figure elsewhere, though, since the sources are in languages I don't speak, I want to make sure they're referring to the same figure before listing them below (which I'll hopefully do shortly). – Michael Aurel (talk) 08:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep per comments below. Not that there is anything to be preserved in the article itself, but this discussion is useful. 84.251.207.6 (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded the article. 84.251.207.6 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any good reason for deletion. Yalpus-Oika is deserving of encyclopedic coverage, and is I think fairly clearly where "Jelping-Ja-Oyka" comes from. Deleting this page, rather than moving it to a more appropriate title and adding these sources, only worsens our coverage of a religion which is probably already poorly covered on Wikipedia. Unless the idea would be to delete this page, and then create "Yalpus-Oika" (or "Jalpus-Oyka")?, which seems a largely pointless exercise to me, when we could retain the current page, with its page history, and the context of this discussion. – Michael Aurel (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support the idea of renaming the page and adding the information from these sources as there seems to be enough reliable coverage of Yalpus-Oyka/Konsyg-Oyka. Jaguarnik (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Jaguarnik, given your last comment in this discussion, would you like to withdraw this nomination?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since it would be more efficient to rename the page rather than deleting and making a new one, then yes, I think withdrawing the nomination is best. Jaguarnik (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jelping-Ja-Oyka&oldid=1260547160"