Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch declension


 * 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 Archaic Dutch declension. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Dutch declension

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This page gives a very inaccurate view of Dutch grammar. Look on the talk page and you'll see what I mean, well over half the comments are talking about how wrong the content is, how much it needs to be rewritten, and so on. These comments go all the way back to 2006 (!) but nothing has been done since then, so I am led to believe that nominating it for deletion is the only way to get it fixed. Dutch does not have declension, it has no grammatical cases, but this page makes it appear as if it does. The only thing on the page that is accurate at all is the part about diminutives, and that could easily be put on Dutch grammar. It should be noted, though, that the written form of Dutch still used some or most of these forms until the 1940s. So if we take "Dutch" to mean everything since 1500, then it is more or less accurate. But it does not apply to modern Dutch at all, and I don't know why the article was created to make it seem like it does. CodeCat (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The version of the article discussed here was implemented by an anonymous editor in January 2013. I have restored an older, more representative version. Iblardi (talk) 10:50, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per "if we take 'Dutch' to mean everything since 1500, then it is more or less accurate". AFD isn't for cleanup. If things need to be labeled as archaic or whatever, then do so. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Merge to Archaic Dutch declension (which I was unaware of until I saw the discussion below). Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This has been here since 2006. What guarantee is there that if this page is kept, someone will fix it? Right now I'm saying, fix it or it goes. CodeCat (talk) 13:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Also it looks like there is Archaic Dutch declension, which contains the exact same information but is at least a bit more honest about it. CodeCat (talk) 13:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like one of the editors complaining about the accuracy of this article actually took the trouble to rewrite it, but that this rewrite kept getting reverted by an IP. Here is the latest revert, in January. Would the version before that be more acceptable, CodeCat? If so, it might be better to keep the article, but protect it with pending changes protection. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's better, yes, but it doesn't have the same detail that Archaic Dutch declension has. Although I don't know how accurate that article is either. That's kind of the problem with this topic, nobody knows the declension anymore because it's obsolete, so nobody has the know-how to say what's correct, incorrect or dubious. We can only rely on sources. I would suggest merging the older rewritten version of Dutch declension into Archaic Dutch declension and redirecting to it, then checking all of the latter for sourcing and marking off what still needs it. CodeCat (talk) 14:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * In that case I think I agree - we should merge Dutch declension into Archaic Dutch declension. Even if the title of the latter changes, these articles are basically on the same subject, so merging them makes sense. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I should have read this discussion before reverting. I now see that this proposal had already been made here. If anyone disagrees with my action, you can change it back if you will. I do think that the anonymous' edit of January 2013, which replaced large stretches of sourced text with original research -forms like "des baby's" and "des bureaus", for instance, combining archaic grammar with modern loanwords, look ridiculous and are, to my knowledge, never used- amounts to vandalism, especially given the many discussions that were held on this subject on the article's talk page, and for this reason alone should be discarded. Iblardi (talk) 11:37, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)




 * Merge to Archaic Dutch declension per arguments from Mr. Strad, CodeCat, and Aɴɢʀ. Merge the non-vandalized stuff restored by Iblardi. Cnilep (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the examples I mentioned above, "des baby's" and "des bureaus", were apparently copied to this article from Archaic Dutch declension. The latter is actually the result of POV-forking and was created years ago as a compromise in order to keep a particular user from reverting the general article on Dutch declension to a version which reflected his own, bizarre, view on the subject. I wouldn't say that Archaic Dutch declension is completely rubbish (new information was added over time), but I would be very hesitant to merge the two. Iblardi (talk) 11:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Those forms would have been correct in written standard Dutch up until the 1940s I think. So it's not "rubbish", but it doesn't reflect modern Dutch unless you want to sound silly and archaic. CodeCat (talk) 13:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Merging the articles doesn't mean that you have to keep the bad stuff. The best thing to do would be to make the merged article actually accurate, and then request protection at WP:RFPP if the IP reverts again. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 14:37, 17 October 2013 (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.