Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Focurc language

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 delete. The "delete" arguments are based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, while almost all of the "keep" arguments either have nothing to do with those policies and guidelines, or in some cases are actually contrary to policy. To give a few examples, "to delete the page denies Focurc's existence" is a misunderstanding, as existence does not imply notability; "If this page is deleted, how else would this speech be known" indicates both an acceptance that the subject is little known (i.e not notable) and also that the purpose of this article is to make it better known (i.e. to promote it); "the division between language and dialect is purely political" and "differences from Scots are ... substantial" are irrelevant, because whether we regard it as a language or a dialect makes no difference to whether the it is satisfies the notability guidelines. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focurc language

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

Focurc language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

From the sources it is obvious that this is just a very local dialect which one person has decided to call a language. There is no evidence of widespread or significant coverage of the idea that it is a language. In fact I have not found any reliable source that accepts this as a language. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The differences from Scots are quite a bit more substantial than "just a very local dialect" would imply in most minds, besides the division between "language" and "dialect" is purely political. Englisceadwine (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
*— Englisceadwine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep: Aye, this is a solid keep from me, per Leornendeealdenglisc and Englisceadwine. More sources and references could always be found, though. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 03:23, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: after further consideration (I admit I was unable to access The Scotman originally, and did fail in my due diligence), I find the arguments of Uanfala, The king of the sun, and Breaking sticks persuasive: with my access to the article, I find that, well, if this is a language, it's one with a tenuous claim; with an arcane orthography that does not translate well to the International Phonetic Alphabet, discovered, apparently, by a 22-year-old landscaper (who has apparently dabbled in constructed languages before), fuelled primarily through Reddit, and rejected by sceptical academics, including a known professor in linguistics and the Scottish language. As such, it's unsupported by academia, the sourcing is suspect (finding a new language should lead to many articles in reputable publications), and the claims are nearly extraordinary. In short: delete; we can recreate as needed, once additional sourcing comes through that substantiates the claims made. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 18:05, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete. There are two references, but the substantial majority of the text of the two is identical, so we really have one source with a small addendum. We are told "The coverage in The Scotsman is significant". It is just one report telling us that one person has made a claim that this is a language. On its own (or even together with the slightly edited version of the same article) it is nowhere near the sort of substantial coverage that is required for notability. Also, even what it is is not coverage of this "language": it is coverage of the fact that one person claims it is a language. The source makes it 100% clear that no reliable scholar thinks it is a language It refers to the claim that this is a language as "the contention of Mark O’Donnell, 22, the language’s main cheerleader online – and the only person ever to have documented it" (my emphasis), and goes on to say "we should note that what O’Donnell says is not given much credence by academics who have devoted their careers to the study of Scots. 'Having considered, with all good will, the evidence presented for there being a separate West Germanic language, closely related to, but not the same as, Scots, spoken in the Falkirk area, there appears to be no reason for supporting such a hypothesis, says Robert Millar, professor of linguistics and Scottish language at the University of Aberdeen." There is more too, but what it all adds up to is that one person (described elsewhere as a "language activist") has decided to call the speech of one small area a "language", and has set himself the task of publicising the fact.
An interesting light is thrown on the reasons for supporting this article by two talk page posts. In this edit the single-purpose account Haarle said that the "language" "can benefit a lot from being described on Wikipedia", and likewise in this edit Leornendeealdenglisc said " I'd say have the page on so at least people can know about it and hopefully do something to help preserve it. Without the page, how would other people know about it?" The Wikipedia article is an attempt to publicise and promote the totally unnotable fringe view that this is a language. The king of the sun (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further evidence for the point raised in that last paragraph is the comment further up this page "If this page is deleted, how else would this speech be known?" The whole thing is an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion of an opinion. Breaking sticks (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This old version of the article better reflects the status of the dialect or language. My changes were reverted by another editor. I realize that AfD is not the place for content disputes, but I think my old version is better. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fully agree with The king of the sun on the main point here: it's clear from the sources that this is a dialect that one activist wishes to present as some sort of exotic new language. This makes the article's title (and most of its content) misleading, but I'm not sure how it impacts the notability: it doesn't matter if it's a language or a dialect as dialects can usually be considered inherently notable. I almost wasn't able to find any scholarly sources on this dialect, so we seem to have only the two newspaper articles to go by, with the possible addition of this paper, which mentions the dialect of Falkirk (presumably the same one) as the basis of a controversial proposal for the standardisation of Scots. Maybe all this is enough for WP:GNG (and maybe GNG doens't matter given the inherent notability), but if the aricle is kept it will need to pared down to a bare core of a couple of sentences. The current article includes a lot of detail about the sound system, but that seems to be based entirely on https://sites.google.com/site/focurclid/ – a website probably created by the same language activist. It's a commandable work, and hope its creator continues to work on it, but WP:RS would require us to avoid basing linuistic content on non-linguistic sources, an issue that becomes even more relevant given the marked exotifying bend that the Scotsman article makes clear. – Uanfala (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment'. I will concede that the version which reflects the uncertainty of its linguistic status is more accurate until more scholarly research is done. However, a flat out deletion is not really needed.Englisceadwine (talk) 00:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Eastmain \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10Eleventeen 08:14, 6 July 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Focurc_language&oldid=849103270"