Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sikorski

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 fix Lembit Staan's cut-n-paste moves and contested changes to the primary topic of "Sikorsky" and contested split of the disambiguation page, with no prejudice against an new WP:RM discussion to move the disambiguation page to a "(disambiguation)" title so that the base name might become a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT, nor against a new WP:SPLIT proposal for the disambiguation page to reflect the different spellings, but neither of those discussions are AfDs, and they shouldn't be combined. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sikorski

[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)

This is basically a fork of Sikorsky, which was then redirected to Igor Sikorsky, with new DAB pages created at Sikorsky (disambiguation) and Sikorski (disambiguation), all without discussion or consensus. Attempts to restore the status quo ante were reverted. All of this can and should be covered at Sikorsky, as it has been for over 15 years. BilCat (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep The nomination is without merit. Sikorsky was an unreferenced non-article with facrtually wrong information. HOw a correct referenced artcile Sikorski can be a fork of a false text beats me. The fact that it sat there for 15 yeqrs speaks something of thje expertise of wikipedians, not of the quality of the article, Lembit Staan (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Contrary to what editor2 seems to think, there is a clear primary topic. So the exercise to change the redirect to a thingy is not a good idea. The Banner talk 21:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What the heck are you talkin about? This article is abouth the Polsih surname. Guess what is a possible primary topic for Sikorski? - Władysław Sikorski. I am pretty sure you do not even know who he waas. Sikorsky is not Sikorski. Lembit Staan (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge them back We should not demand that our users magically know which Polish or other Slavic names transliterate to Sikorski and which to Sikorsky in English, that's a lot to ask for. (Are there any Sikorskiys? Sikorksijs? I wouldn't be surprised.) This is a disambiguation page, it's much more valuable if it covers all Sikorskis and Sikorskys in one place. --GRuban (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This argument does make sense. However The article title should be Sikorski - this is the surmame, even judging from the list of persons: 1 Sikorsky vs 20 Sikorski. And the article about Polish surname to start with "Sikorsky is a Russian version of a Polish surname"? Ridiculous. Lembit Staan (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - So, you have a preference for a Polish name over a Russian name? The Banner talk 09:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not a Russian name. It is an English transliteration of the Russified form of a Polish name. Polish name twice removed, so to say. (And not the ignorant nonsense which was written in the article when I first saw it : "Sikorsky an English-language respelling of the Slavic surname Sikorski" - Why on Earth someone would need to respel a Polish name written in purely English letters? For comparison, how would you imagine AfD for Smith to make it a redirect to Smyth? Lembit Staan (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does look like there are a lot more Sikorskis in our encyclopedia (17) than Sikorskys (one), so I can support Sikorski being the main page and Sikorsky either being a redirect here or to Igor Sikorsky with a hatnote at the top of Igor Sikorsky "for other people named Sikorski or Sikorsky, see Sikorski (disambiguation)".--GRuban (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There is a spelling difference, it seems fine as a disambig separate from Sikorsky. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason given to delete except that it's clutter. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2020 (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.