Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anglic 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 was   no consensus to delete, indications of consensus to rename.  MBisanz  talk 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Anglic languages

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is not quite an invention of wikipedians, but it is just about. In essence it is a wiki-meme whose survival algorithm is that a small group of Scots particularly patriotic about Scots wish to avoid implying that Scots has anything to do with English, instead taking the contruction Anglic from the Latin word for English. Not good enough. Searching it on google minus wikipedia gets circa 200 hits almost all of which are conspicuously derived from wikipedia or else Scots language promotion sites using wikipedia, while google books yields 1 solitary hit, and that isn't about this topic.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  18:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Google scholar find zero valid hits for this term. Looie496 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but possibly re-name. It is certainly not a "wiki-meme" or a fantasy of Scottish nationalists that there is more than one language descended from Old English: Old English, Middle English, Yola, Scots, and English all have currently valid ISO 639-3 codes and thus are considered separate languages by a Wikipedia-external source. At Ethnologue, the group is called simply "English", so if we follow their lead we could call it English languages rather than Anglic languages. We could even call it Languages descended from Old English if need be, but I do notice that the request for an ISO 639-3 code for Yola refers to it as "Anglic". —Angr 20:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The name is a wiki-meme. That English, Old English, Middle English Scots and Yola are all more related to each other than any to Frisian is obviously a point of fact, but this shouldn't obscure the former point and neither should it obscure the fact that wiki is supposed to be based on WP:RS rather than the inventive inclinations of its editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me ask, could a wiki-meme (anglic languages) generate 9 million results on google? And if so, wouldn't this be a more less notable item, as a wiki-meme? --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It could in theory, but doesn't. As I pointed out to you below, there are approximately 113 unique non-wikipedia hits, a large portion of which are conspicuously derived from wikipedia. No-one will ever be able to argue that "Anglic" is the or even a common way of describing languages/dialects descended from Old and Middle English. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is an argument for renaming, not an argument for deletion. Unless you want to argue that the very concept of a group of languages descended from Old English is OR invented by Wikipedians, there is no reason to delete this article. —Angr 22:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, 'tis not quite as cut and dry as all that and the category and name are not completely divorced. Obviously if a group of varieties have a common ancestor, they can be categorized together, but it doesn't mean it is good encyclopedic practice to OR in order to do so. Insular Germanic would be better than current title as it is at least marginally attested in scholarly material, though as in the case of Anglic allowing such an article to exist would be lending undue weight to a marginal term. Less formal titles are possible. List of languages and dialects descended from Old English would for instance be fine, but wouldn't include Old English and would be pretty pointless given we've already got a number of overlapping list articles on certain linguistic categorizations and on theories masquerading as objective scientific categorizations. E.g. such forms are already listed on Anglo-Frisian languages and West Germanic languages and List_of_Indo-European_languages. The only other point an article such as that would have would already be covered by History of the English language. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that the issue seems centered on the maintenance of academic categories, it isn't just a typical spurious deletion; the nom seems good, I strike my keep. It's very interesting, I know something about this, certainly not enough to contribute to the discussion.   If "anglic" is a popular concept, it will develop and grow in and of itself.  Have a nice day.   --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep  No vote. (See above)--Mr Accountable (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC) --- The Boston University School of Theology seems to take Anglic languages seriously; + 9 mm results at google search: anglic languages + keep as per User:Angr. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the "as per User:Angr", but what you linked to is just a copy of the Wikipedia page. —Angr 20:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed that, but the Boston University School of Theology digital library has taken the effort to put material from Wikipedia's 'Anglic languages' and 'Germanic languages' on a page about their curriculum. --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, actually now I am not sure, http://digilib.bu.edu/ does not produce a webpage, though it comes up on the first page of Google search: 'boston university school of theology digital library'. Hm.  At any rate, 'anglic languages' did produce over 9 million search results.  --Mr Accountable (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a copy. "Anglic languages" btw gets 150-500 hits (it varies everytime I do it for some reason). One on google books, which is the result of a particular sentence construction rather than anything to do with the topic. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I just tried again at plain old google search, and I got 627,000 results this time for 'anglic languages' and 42,200,000 for 'anglic language'. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That however has got nothing to do with the topic, as you're just getting hits for other things and for this thing with wikipedia hits. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. The term is used dozens of times at various academic-related sites and somewhat-academic-related sites. with frequency, at various academic sites including sites related to linguistics and semantics, and also at various Scots-related and UK history-related sites.  And it certainly does have something to do with the topic.....If this has a wiki-meme nature to it, well, it has been picked up by academics 'round the world. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. And I have to correct myself, roughly 113 unique hits (check for yourself), many if not most of which are derived indirectly from wikipedia. We can just about end the idea that this term is established outside wikipedia and focus of whether to rename or delete. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I got 517 w/o clicking 'include omitted results' at google.com here in USA. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to correct myself as well, I can't really say that the term is an academic commonplace. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the term has a future, I'll leave my keep as is. Cheers. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this isn't a vote; 'tis supposed to be a discussion. If you don't have any decent arguments your vote should, in theory, be discounted (whether it will or not in practice is another matter).Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't want to be a bad voter, but here's a modification of your search that yielded 113 results; by simply searching "anglic" lowercase a, and subtracting wikipedia.org the same as your quoted search, the search at google.com in the US yielded 956,000 results. Searching the same at google.uk, yield = 290,000.  Wikipedia subtracted.  Please try. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually "anglic" -wikipedia.org yielded 188,000 results, but as a discussion participant I can't agree that anglic and anglic languages are a wiki-meme. It sounds like something, actually.  Article is well-written as well. Keep. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, AfDs aren't the place to teach you how to do google searches. Suffice to say "anglic" doesn't equal Anglic languages. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 22:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Omitting the '"anglic" -wikipedia.org' google search results from consideration makes the nom seem contrived. "Anglic" as a web presence seems nascent. And I don't appreciate the tone of your comment, it seems derogatory.  Please observe some decorum. --Mr Accountable (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, you clearly don't know how to do appropriate Google searches, nor are you actually doing the research that is appropriate for AFD. Counting Google hits is not research.  The numbers mean nothing at all, as anyone who knows how they are generated will tell you.  Research involves actually reading the things that one's search engine turns up.  You don't even need to get past the first five results on your Google search &mdash; one of which is clearly a work of science fiction, describing a fictional language spoken in the far future, and another of which is a 1930s spelling reform that never took off &mdash; to see that your search results are pretty irrelevant to this entire discussion.  Your contributions to this discussion have actually had nothing at all to do with the viability of anglic languages as an encyclopaedia subject, and have helped AFD not a bit.  Please learn how to do appropriate Google searches, and start doing research rather than meaningless counting of hits. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what you're trying to say is that in this case, the results of the google search count research were not very conclusive. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC) I strike my keep anyway based on the academic foundation of the nomination.--Mr Accountable (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No. What I'm trying to say is what I actually said.  What you did was not research.  It was using a generated number that has no useful properties, and that means nothing at all.  I repeat, because you clearly haven't learned it:  Counting Google hits is not research.  Uncle G (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as per all of the very interesting discussion above. --Lost tiree, lost dutch :O (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename/Delete - It seems pretty clear from the evidence above that the term itself isn't seriously established outside wikipedia and it's mirrors/offshoots. However i agree with Angr that there is a place for an article that deals with the various English languages. siarach (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I first came across this nomenclature in the 1970s while pursuing an interest in comparative linguistics, so although Wikipedia may well have made the term more widespread on the internet, I believe that it does (or did) have an academic non-internet existence. For instance here is a reference to an article predating both Wikipedia and the WorldWideWeb.


 * 1985. The Anglic family of languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics and Philology, 2.1.1-4


 * No doubt others could be found if someone was prepared to do some rather tedious research, trawling through journals of comparative or historical linguistics.


 * On a separate note, the fact that some people believe that it is only used by those who wish to disassociate Scots and English is something that could probably be added to the article, (providing that a citation for it can be found at any rate). However it doesn't seem like a good reason for deleting the article. After all we have plenty of articles for concepts used by special interest groups of one sort or another, and in principle this would just be one more. -- Derek Ross | Talk'' 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no relevant hits on google book or scholar, something which tends to affirm what I've stated, i.e. that its non-wikipedia use is marginal at the very best. The fondness Scots enthusiasts have for the term is pure OR by me (though its appeal should be obvious). This is clear from my experience seeing the places it is present on the internet, my knowledge that Scots-loving nationalistic writers (including historians) like to do other such terms, like calling early medieval Northumbrians "Anglian" or "Anglians" in order to pretend they aren't English, and most importantly the users who spread the term on wikipedia (maybe you can affirm this, being as you are an active admin in the Scots wikipedia). It was no coincidence that this nom saw the reappearance of the wiki campaigner I call the "German anon", who has campaigned relentlessly for Scots on wikipedia for years and who suddenly reappeared to try to give the term more credibility. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Derek Ross raises a telling point, I think. It may or may not be true that "its non-wikipedia use is marginal at the very best," but it could be difficult to prove that. What I think Deacon of Pndapetzim does establish is that its non-wikipedia use online is marginal. While this is indicative that the term is marginal, it is not conclusive. The standing of those who use the term also has to be considered, even if they are only a handful. If they are a handful of recognised experts on Scots English or English dialect generally, then the article should be kept. Alternatively, it could be added to the English language article (which includes "Anglic" in its classification box), with a redirect from here. Compare the articles on Tagmemics and eucatastrophe, neither of which would be viable apart from the high standing of those who coined the terms (Kenneth L. Pike and J. R. R. Tolkien respectively).
 * If Derek Ross has access to other material on the term Anglic, then it would be good to cite it in the article. It is not implausible that a term with reasonable currency in older literature (pre-Internet explosion) might fail to show significantly online. Some older academics of my acquaintance have staunchly resisted becoming part of the computer culture.
 * For the article itself. If the subject is a viable one, then the article is pretty much what it should be&mdash;a short exposition of the term itself, with comments on its use that go beyond the scope of a dictionary entry. It doesn't attempt to hijack material properly belonging to an article on English language and/or dialect. Nor does it represent "Anglic" as a standard or broadly accepted term for the concept. It represents it as a term used by those who, whatever their motivation, want to emphasize the distinct nature of particular forms of English. The use of the term in the classification box of the English language article should probably be considered tendentious. But this article has its own sociolinguistic validity. Koro Neil (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Its presence in classification boxes is good demonstration, I may point out, of the power of a wiki-meme with a hard-core of ideologically motivated proponents to destroy the relationship between wikipedia articles on the one hand and wiki policies with the body of recommended sources supposed to be used on the other hand. Google books and google scholar contain a reasonable proportion and cross-section of mainstream scholarship, recent and traditional. "Imbellic cautustration" has the same representation, and that's a term I just made up. That I have proven its representation online is marginal does not mean that offline representation is high. It is strong evidence that offline representation is marginal. It is the only credible evidence that can be presented in an AfD nom also as each contributor can verify it (as well as see a fair representation of how much it is used). I have also asserted that use of the term from my own experience is almost non-existent, and frankly I don't think clutching at straws to find an excuse to keep the article or name is in line with the spirit of wikipedia's policies. It is not widespread practice to categorise these languages below Anglo-Frisian, but if it is done "Anglic" is not the term. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:52, 27 January 2009 (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.