Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumbric revival


 * 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   merge to Cumbric language. It is already mentioned there, so a merge/redirect is a more practical option than deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cumbric revival

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

I've classified this as an organisation, although you could argue the article is about the 'network' or website. I can find no evidence of notability, just some blogs, websites, etc. Not only that, I can find no evidence for a 'rediscovery' or even a discovery of Cumbric manuscripts. If that had actually happened, there would be plenty of evidence for such a momentous discovery. What we seem to have here is a small group of enthusiasts (or at least one) trying to reconstruct a language for which we have no records for (with no evidence for his alleged rediscovery I'm discounting the claim for the moment). Maybe at some point it will become notable, but until then we should not be giving it publicity. Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I clicked too soon. The website has claims for its being mentioned in several local papers, but they all seem to be a copy of the same article, and I don't think that this is enough yet. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect It may be a viable article in the future, but for now this could be a redirect to Celtic Revival. Seems like the work of a new-ish user who has copied and pasted the material from other Wikipedia articles without checking the references at their source. --Jza84 | Talk  17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Celtic Revival. Sources have not been provided to confirm the notability of the organisation. Never mind the manuscripts, no neutral, third-party, reliable sources have been provided that the organisation is notable. However, since Cumbric is a Celtic language it seems sensible to turn the article into a redirect. Nev1 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest a merge to a small paragraph at Cumbric, but then I noticed how new the organisation apparently is, and the lack of sources giving notability. So redirect to Cumbric or Celtic revival, I don't have a preference as to which. Thryduulf (talk) 07:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete since it's already mentioned in the Celtic Revival page and on the Cumbric language page. Moreover, what's described here is only one "wing" of the Cumbric revival movement (if there is such a thing) other versions conflict with their reconstruction. Paul S (talk) 15:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/redirect per nom. ClovisPt (talk) 16:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cumbric, which has a short section on the attempted revival. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Cumbric language where, as Peterkingiron points out, it is already mentioned. Someone there should look into the possibly COI link to Cumbric Revival Community Network, by the way. I trust it isn't POV? Cnilep (talk) 21:28, 8 July 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.