Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Slavic languages

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 of the debate was consensus to keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

North Slavic languages

del insufficiently notable linguistic exercise. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of its popularization. mikka (t) 20:26, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

• delete unsubstantiated speculation and original research. --Ghirlandajo 20:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per Ghirlandajo 22:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Bakharev (talk • contribs) 2005-11-29 22:13:13 (UTC)
• Keep. I could really do without the conlang stuff, but if linguists (of whom I am one, but not a Slavicist) use North Slavic (and they do, as a google search will confirm), then it's a legitimate article, although one that could stand some improvement. rodii 23:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  • My google search for "north Slavic language", ""North Slavonic language"" & variants confirmed that this is an extremely marginal term, of which the majority are Vozgan &Co. Solid references, please. mikka (t) 09:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have never said that the term is in common use! It ís, however, used by some, and even Google is sufficient to confirm that. You might want to google for "North Slav(on)ic" instead, because if often refers not only to language but to Slavic culture in general. Besides, have you googled for "East Slav(on)ic language"? Not thát many hits either! --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 09:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand this nomination: did mikka not see that the article discusses a genuine linguistic grouping as well as some fictional languages, and even cites what appears, insofar as my German takes me, to be a perfectly valid reference? — Haeleth Talk 01:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  Comment: there are even three interwiki links. The Dutch one is the source for this article, which is a straightforward translation of a text that our Dutch comrades appear to consider unobjectionable. The Czech Wikipedia appears only to discuss the conlangs; the Polish Wikipedia article linked to here is on the conlangs, but it has what I'm 90% certain is a stub on the real language group at pl:Języki północnosłowiańskie. — Haeleth Talk 01:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, of course. Easy for me to say that, since I wrote it. In this article, I was merely trying to describe a phenomenon: the fact that the term "North Slavic" is used for three different phenomena - the grouping of East and West Slavic together under the header "North Slavic" (you don't believe me? Google for it), the fact that there are scientists who believe a North Slavic branch does exist, or has existed (I'll look for sources), and a group of conlangs based on that last premise. As for the conlangs: I agree that the languages mentioned there are not notable enough to warrant articles on their own (viz. wikipedia.pl, which has individual articles about no less than six of them!). We've had many discussions already about merging articles like that into one, and in this case I simply decided to do that in advance. While the languages mentioned may not be notable enough on their own, they certainly are as a group. That has nothing to do with "wikipedia being a vehicle for their promotion". BTW, the languages in question are all artlangs, so there's really nothing to promote here. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 08:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  Yes I googled. No kidding. Why do you think I nominated? Miniscule hit count for "North Slavic". It is not like refs to unknown zimbabwe tribe. Who of notable scientists maintain this classification? Solid references, please. mikka (t) 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - IJzeren Jan is a very trustworthy member of the nl. community. he wouldn't write anything questionable. (unsigned contribution by Waerth) Waerth 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  If he is a prominent member, he must know the tradition here in English wikipedia: notability. mikka (t) 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  I am very well aware of that tradition. I am also very well aware of the fact that notability is by no means a commonly accepted criterion. But like I said, I do personally believe that it should be a factor. And therefore, I have explicitly not created articles about individual languages, nor do I intend to. But as a conlang subgroup, ánd as a scientific phenomenon (albeit a slightly marginal one) it most certainly has a certain amount a notability. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 10:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  I am terribly sorry but the traditions on nl: differ greatly from en: . I do not see why it should be a requirement for someone to know about en: wikipedia traditions if he edits here only irregularly? Or is knowing english wikipedia traditions a requirement to be allowed to edit? If so start banning me. Waerth 10:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  Bogus argument - "notability" is not a deletion reason. That's an English AFD "tradition", and AFD's "traditions" are getting close attention and being greatly questioned both inside and outside Wikipedia - David Gerard 13:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - AFD nomination from personal ignorance - David Gerard 13:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - The term North Slavic is definitely used sometimes to combine West and East Slavic (as opposed to South Slavic). This makes sense both linguistically and geographically since the North and South Slavic speaking regions are not adjacent. Xyboi 14:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  Then say so. The current version of the article explains the meaning of the term otherwise. --Ghirlandajo 14:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  Unless I'm mistaken, it is said that way in the article. But English is not my native language, so I may have been formulating badly. Anyway, feel free to edit the article. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 14:31, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  Not otherwise, but in different ways as well. Anyway, I didn't write this article and I don't know much about the other meanings presented in this article, but this is no reason for deletion. Xyboi 14:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --PeteBleackley 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete um, AFAIK there are no North Slavs...  Grue  16:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

  Really? Even if that would be true, which it isn't, should I, as an unbelieving person, take that as an invitation to submit God, Zeus, Aliens, Gnomes and other members of the same family for deletion too, then? ----IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 20:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep: I'm slightly surprised that the question of references was not initially raised on the talk page…shades of "shoot first and ask questions after". There seem to be some useful references below: who's going to add them? —Phil | Talk 08:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

  I just added them. I'll leave it to others to remove the {{accuracy}} tag. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 09:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep --Miaow Miaow 15:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Discussion

I am surprized why people keep ignoring that the main issue with wikipedia is wikipedia:Verifiability. I am not at all against fringe theories here, but the more obscure subject is covered, the better it must be referenced.

We have plenty of trolls here to invent nations and languages. For example not long time ago Black Ruthenian language was created several times. (and BTW the waves of this hoax are still on net; e.g. at a website that sells cars: Black_Ruthenian_language). I suggest you to take a look at it and see that this one was written with love and care, much better that the article we are discussing.

Threfore rather than poking at my ignorance you better provide solid references. I tried to search web, but the traces of the term (in non-toy usage) were very weak to convince me in its notability. mikka (t) 20:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I am surprized that, when searching the web, you didn't find this or this publication by prof. Kortlandt, who does use the term North Slavic. Kortlandt can hardly be viewed as a marginal reference. The former reference was on the first google page when I searched for "North Slavic". Xyboi 20:17, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Kortlandt is one of the sources I had in mind. And here's another reference (regarding the use of "North Slavic" vs. for "East ánd West Slavic" vs. "South Slavic"):

Bernard Comrie & Greville G. Corbett, The Slavonic languages (London, 1993), p. 75, pp. 115-119 and several other places in the same book. An authoritative source, if I may say so.

The existence of the North Slavic constructed languages is obvious enough and needs not to be proven here. If the many references on the web are not good enough for you, the article written by Prof. Tilman Berger definitely should be!

As for the alledged North Slavic background of the Novgorod dialect: I know there are sources for that too, but I can't recall them offhand now. I'll look into that.

Satisfied now? Instead of displaying such a condescending attitude, you might as well have asked these questions before issuing a VFD against the article. I'm not exactly a newbie in wikiland, but let me tell you this: if this is the way potentially prolific new wikipedians are normally dealt with after they write their first or second article, there's a huge chance you'll lose them forever! --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 20:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

My "condescending attitude" is in my nomination: "insufficiently notable linguistic exercise. Wikipedia is not a vehicle of its popularization" and related to toy-languages. It is a modern development, played on web. Still, miserable visibility hence notability. The actual linguistic discussion is secondary importance here. If this article survives, it must be renamed into Constructed North Slavic languages. If there was a serious theory about "real" N-Slavic langs, it must be presented under this title, with proper references, for verification. Kortlan's use of the term proves nothing; for all I saw, it is just a matter of convenience. In any case, this if way far from mainstream. As for my attitude, we live in real world. There are muggers and killers and trolls, and me. As you see, nothing terrible happened. Your opinion prevailed. No need to panic. I am not going to fight tooth and claw. mikka (t) 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, Mikkalai, I'm not trying to popularise anything; I notice a certain phenomenon and I try to describe it, that's all. If you don't care for "toy-languages", that's fine. So leave people alone who do. As far as I am concerned, constructed languages are an art form just like any other art form.

Next: first you claim nothing of what's written can be proven and ask for references, then you get your references, and next you say that "the actual linguistic discussion is of secondary importance". Now, have I missed something?

About renaming the article: no. North Slavic languages are an existing phenomenon, whether you like it or not. And there are two different meanings for it, both given in the article, plus the constructed languages that are based on the premise of one of those. I see no reason for splitting it in two (or three) until the size of the article would demand it. And FYI: Kortlandt is one of the best-esteemed authorities in the field.

And at last, keep your allusions to trolls and the like to yourself, please. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 21:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

"And at last": the sentence read "... trolls and me", i.e., I was putting myself in this list not you, hinting that you must deal with these phenomena without panic. IMO wikipedia today no longer especially lacks "prolific" cntributors, but really needs those who can substantiate their work by fact, not by snobish refernce to someone's ignorance. I still don't see solid references in your article. mikka (t) 21:55, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't said a word about your ignorance. But to be very honest, I am very unpleasantly surprised about the unfriendly tone of this discussion. Anyway, schwamm drüber. How do you want those references placed in the article? References to the very existence of a phenomenon surely shouldn't be placed in the "external links" section? Frankly, instead of complaining, I don't understand why you don't place those footnotes yourself, if you care so much for them. Best regards, --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 22:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I voted keep above already. I'd like to inject some cites, but it's hard to know where to fit them in this flamewar. However: this article could use a little fixup, yes. North Slavic is somewhat tenuous as a language family; it's more often considered an areal pheonomenon, or a dialect continuum including East and West Slavic. I agree the article could stand some more depth and some better sourcing. To me that indicates the article should be improved, not deleted. Some links, though (via google): [1] [2] and

• Andrii Danylenko. "The 'Greek Accusative' vs. the 'New Slavic Accusative' in the Impersonal Environment: an Areal or Structural Discrepancy?", from the ICHL Indo-European Workshop, August 2005.
• Tommola, Hannu. 2000. "On the Perfect in North Slavic." Östen Dahl (ed.), Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 441-478.
• Hult, Arne. "On the verbal morphology of the South Slavic languages (in comparison with the North Slavic languages, especially Russian", Papers from First Conference on Formal Approaches to South Slavic Languages. Plovdiv October 1995. Dragvoll, University of Trondheim, Linguistics Department (= University of Trondheim. Working Papers in Linguistics 28), ss. 105-35. (23)
• Timberlake, Alan. 1978. On the History of the Velar Phonemes in North Slavic [in Russian with English synopsis]. In Henrik Birnbaum, ed., American Contributions to the Eighth International Congress of Slavists, vol. 1, Linguistics and Poetics. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.

North Slavic is a real linguistic concept. It's not particularly obscure. Comrie, Timberlake, Hult, Rappaport, and Tommola are all well-known and respected academic linguists with substantial publication records, not hobbyists or amateurs. I repeat, if Mikka thinks that the conlangs aspect of this article is bogus, he should edit the page or take his case to the talk page, not try to do this via AfD. And yes, the vitriolic tone of this discussion has been surprising. Keep your chin up, IJzeren Jan. rodii 00:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Honestly, I do agree with you that the article could do with some more depth. I sincerely hope that people more knowledgeable than me will take care of that, because unlike some others here, I am not a real expert in the field, merely a well-informed amateur. But I'm still not sure you to go about the "cite your sources" thingy. It appears to me that a footnote would be inappropriate if the book(s) in question only prove that a certain word is indeed used in a certain meaning. --IJzeren Jan _{In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij} 06:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, Vozgian is a great article possibility. Unlike some of the constructed languages that get written about here, this is one I've actually heard of. Sevorian is good too. Wiwaxia 06:06, 4 December 2005 (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.