Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KaraÐoz

KaraÐoz

The article claims its subject is a "recently discovered [piece of] folklore", but googling on [KaraÐoz Croatia] returns one hit, which appears to be unrelated, and a search on "CuttaJoes", the suggested alternate spelling, gets no hits. Delete unless verified. Meelar (talk) 02:52, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep.

Why would this article be selected for deletion? I recently heard this story from my girlfriend who is from Croatia and told me about the KaraÐoz myth among other things and thought I would add it under the proper category (lists of species in folklore.) It does not break any of the rules for deletion (i.e., not copyright infringment, not vanity page, spam or advertising, and is not patent nonsense) and fits perfectly within the mythologies already listed under the catagory.

And incidentaly, a mythology, by Wikipedia's own definition, "are generally stories based on tradition and legend designed to explain the universal and local beginnings ("creation myths" and "founding myths"), natural phenomena, inexplicable cultural conventions, and anything else for which no simple explanation presents itself." and "many simple legends and narratives passed down orally from generation to generation have mythic content".

Just because a particular search engine has not been able to pick up on a regional myth is no reason for deletion. There are THOUSANDS of such myths and folklores that, when searched for, do not garner hits in Google. I say keep until proven not a myth.

As for Google, my domain name and website, genshi.com has been online since 1999 and was always searchable until this year when searching for genshi.com garnered ZERO hits. I had to beg and fight with Google for this omission and now (as of the past month) genshi.com will show results when searched on Google using quotation marks. Point being, I think Meelar puts too much faith in Google!

genshi 03:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All of user's edits are to his user page, to the article, or to link to the article. —Korath (Talk) 03:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. How do we prove it is not a myth? Is not the total lack of evidence supporting this entry enough proof? Provide one single reference and you will have gone a long way in making your case. A web page, a news article, a journal article, anything will do. Word of mouth is not enough to substantiate an encyclopedia article. So I vote delete as this is a likely hoax or urban legend until I see evidence to the contrary. Gamaliel 03:31, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Again I say Keep because word of mouth IS enough to substantiate a myth. That is the whole point of myths, folklores and urban legends. How do you think the ridiculous Jackalope and Chupacabra got started? Now they can be found everywhere including movies, but I remember when Chupcabra first started in the early 1990s, and that WAS a hoax to begin with.

Of course it will be hard to find written documentation for a strictly oral tradition from a country like Croatia (especially given the recent history of Croatia where they were not even able to keep written records of their OWN actual history due to the communist rule as Yugoslavia and the subsequent Croatian/ Bosnian/ Serbian war! Research that and you will find it is true.)

genshi 03:41, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you must realize that without some form of verification, we can't tell whether this is real, or an elaborate prank. Unfortunately, the Internet can bring out the worst in people. Good luck on your search (I personally wouldn't know where to begin), but we must delete this unless a reference is provided of some sort. Thanks again, Meelar (talk) 03:47, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, unverified, possible hoax. Megan1967 03:50, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Apparent hoax. Delete unless referenced. —Korath (Talk) 03:54, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

• This is very discouraging. I had read an article regarding Wikipedia in Wired magazine and thought it a fascinating and brilliant idea (me being a long time supporter of the open source community.) My first contribution to this site and within minutes an elitist storm wants to delete the entry. I would understand if it was an article falsely making statements regarding a current president or giving ridiculous statistics on an historical subject that has known and provable facts, but this is an article about a regional oral folklore... a myth. And a myth is a myth; it doesn't exist to begin with except as a myth, so why so adamant about not including it? There are many oral myths that are not provable until the first bold person puts it into print... and isn't this just what Wikipedia encourages? This is NOT a hoax and there is nothing malicious in my intent of this article, it is simply a myth that I heard.

genshi 03:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• No, it's not what Wikipedia encourages. In fact, Wikipedia prohibits it. One of the rules here is no original research. Wikipedia is not intended to be a trendsetter for cataloging new and cutting edge material, it is by its very nature a secondary resource which records and summarizes the work of others. This is nothing new; encyclopedias are traditionally not the place to record anything new, whether it be scientific discoveries or oral traditions or whatever. If you are the first one to put this myth into print, the proper place would be something like an academic journal. Then we can use such journal articles are resources and references to write a Wikipedia article on the subject. The use of such references is hardly "elitist", nor is demanding that one back up one's assertions with facts. Gamaliel 04:11, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ahh... Sorry, I did not realize the no original research rule. I just sort of jumped right in and then was shocked that so soon everyone wants to delete something so simple and harmless (and still true.) Wikipedia keeps saying "Be bold with your edits" or "be bold with what you write" so I misunderstood. But it makes sense the way you put it Gamaliel, "encyclopedias are traditionally not the place to record anything new" and I would have to agree with you on that as well. I apologize for being so sensitive to this, my first post.

genshi 04:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)