Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Slavic languages: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:42, 30 November 2005

North Slavic languages

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

delete unsubstantiated speculation and original research. --Ghirlandajo 20:47, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
If he is a prominent member, he must know the tradition here in English wikipedia: notability. mikka (t) 09:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep - AFD nomination from personal ignorance - David Gerard 13:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Then say so. The current version of the article explains the meaning of the term otherwise. --Ghirlandajo 14:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep --PeteBleackley 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 *:::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. --[[User:IJzeren Jan|IJzeren Jan]] [[User talk:IJzeren Jan| <font color="green"><sub>''In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij''</sub></font>]] 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. [[User:Xyboi|Xyboi]] 14:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
+'''Keep''' --[[User:PeteBleackley|PeteBleackley]] 14:42, 30 November 2005 (UTC)