Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak


 * 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. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Folkspraak

 * Folkspraak language was nominated for deletion on 2005-12-29. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".  For the prior discussion, see Articles for deletion/Folkspraak language.
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article fails to establish notability through references in reliable third-party publications. Search of academic journals on EBSCOhost yields no results, and Google Scholar returns four results: three are from 1934 and earlier (predating the language's creation) and the fourth is a trivial mention where Folkspraak is included in a long list of minor constructed languages. As far as I am able to determine, there exist no books, journal articles, or third-party sources of any kind reporting on Folkspraak. This language seems to exist only in a Yahoo Groups mailing list and the self-published websites of its members. Schaefer (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC) *Delete per nom, and UncleG's comments in the prior debate. A search of major papers and German newssources also turns up no hits. - Aagtbdfoua 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A quick search reveals that nothing has substantially changed since the last AFD discussion. My rationale from that discussion therefore still stands.  Ironically, these messages on a Yahoo! Groups discussion forum indicate that the proponents of the language don't know of any sources, either.  The article remains, as it was before and as it has remained for one and a half years, unverifiable and original research.  Delete. Uncle G 23:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to consider that auxiliary languages are rarely covered by major news media or other mainstream sources that might be consulted on other subjects. A search of the Time archive turns up no mention more recent than 1950 of any auxiliary language other than Interlingua and Esperanto. Cal 00:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Folkspraak is one of today's better-known constructed languages, and as a Germanic interlanguage not only unique in its kind, but also highly representative of the subgenre of interregional languages. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  14:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That Folkspraak is one of today's better-known constructed languages isn't saying much&mdash;conlangs are so numerous and obscure that one can be "better-known" with a speaker body of 20 people. There are over sixty million people who can correctly claim to be more famous than 99% of the population, but that doesn't mean they all get Wikipedia articles. The notability requirement for a subject having its own article is that the subject has non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Every source presented in the article is self-published, thus not useful for establishing notability. As for Folkspraak being representative of a notable subject, I can't see what point you're making. I could claim to be representative of chess players, and chess is clearly a notable subject, but that doesn't mean I should get an article. -- Schaefer (talk) 16:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That analogy is admittedly a bit flawed. If you really were representative of chess players, I reckon you would probably have an article, because chess players is a very large group. Conlangers is a far smaller group&mdash;in more general words, constructed languages is not a notable enough field for notability within the field to suggest general notability. In a field of greater notability (like chess, I'd say) this line of reasoning could very well be used, though. This whole thing is a bit OT, anyway, but there we go. EldKatt (Talk) 20:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The vast majority of auxiliary languages, constructed or not, probably shouldn't have a Wikipedia article. However, I wouldn't include among them the one most prominent Germanic auxiliary language that is spoken today. Most auxiliary languages aren't covered in mainstream academic journals; Folkspraak's absence there says little about the language. I've never heard of an auxiliary language with only 20 speakers being considered "better known." In practice, they're most often characterized as "defunct" or "unused". It concerns me that auxiliary languages are being nominated for deletion without sufficient knowledge of the genre. This could result in articles on important languages being deleted, while trivial projects remain. I'm also seeing a troubling bias against auxiliary languages per se. Dislike of a subject shouldn't be a reason for deletion, but I've seen it happen to more than one auxiliary language article. Again, I think that only a small number of auxiliary languages should have Wikipedia articles, but that the decision to delete should be an informed one. Cal 17:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Most auxiliary languages aren't covered in mainstream academic journals; Folkspraak's absence there says little about the language." It says a great deal about the notability of small auxiliary languages in general. Wikipedia should not cover subjects that academic journals, news media, and popular press have all consistently ignored. There are, undoubtedly, notable conlangs. Languages like Volapük, Esperanto, Ido, and Interlingua have been reported on in great detail in reliable print sources. Folkspraak has not. The fact that there exist many auxiliary languages less notable than Folkspraak does not make Folkspraak notable. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Observation: Trying to judge this matter fairly, the first thing I notice is that the page as it stands is poorly referenced. I have a very distinct feeling that it can't get any better on this point, and that only the very existence of the language is truly verifiable. This leads me to consider a delete vote. However, I have not personally looked at/for sources to the extent necessary for me to say right away that this is the case, and, as such, I am undecided. My inclination is to see if anything besides the title can be properly referenced, and if not, delete. Until either side convinces me that they are correct, I am undecided. EldKatt (Talk) 20:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ptcamn 01:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Since notability and third-party sources seem to be sticking points, I've brought out an aspect of Folkspraak's notability - its being the major Germanic auxiliary language - and have added two third-party sources that verify some of the information in the article. While one of the sources is in a blog, it is written by a Dean at the University of Louisville so should be fairly reliable. These are not print sources; to my knowledge, this isn't a requirement. A third source is an article in a Swedish-language newspaper. I haven't added it, given that English-language sources are available. Cal 01:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A claim of notability isn't worth much unless it is verifiable. You added a line claiming, "Folkspraak is the major Germanic auxiliary language in current use." On whose authority is this true? More importantly, perhaps, why does this make the language notable? As far as I can tell, there isn't much competition. What is the major Celtic auxiliary language? Does being the major Celtic auxlang give it notability? What about the major Indic auxlang? The major Iranian auxlang? Presumably, the notability associated with these titles is just waiting to be seized by anybody with some friends willing to start writing a dictionary.
 * As for the sources you added, both are self-published by their authors, and neither author claims to have any credentials as a professional linguist. Thus, neither meets the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia's policy on self-published sources. The Swedish newspaper article could be a different story, and I would appreciate a link to it if there is a copy of the text available online. -- Schaefer (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The link you provided says "a relevant field"; it doesn't specify the same field as the subject of the article. In general, Wikipedia's policies are not meant to be adhered to inflexibly; the first of the third-party sources is Omniglot and is normally considered fairly reliable for information on auxiliary languages. It isn't my responsibility to tell you the major Celtic auxiliary language, answer a series of questions, or really respond to a harangue at all. Notice how much your response differs from the discussion process described here. As stated here, civility is an important principle of Wikipedia, and I'm concerned that the selective haranguing of people who have voted to keep could compromise, or has compromised, the validity of this discussion. Cal 00:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you saw my comment as haranguing. My intent was not to make you feel obligated to dig through Langmaker to answer those questions, but rather to suggest they likely have no answers, and, if they do, the difficulty with which those languages come to mind shows how little notability is associated with being "the major auxiliary language" based on any particular language family. For the issue of the blog author's scholarly work being in relevant field, see my response to Aagtbdfoua below. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

A language for all men (title). Have you spoken Volapuk recently? No? Esperanto then? Or why not folkspraak? Torgny Nordin examines the state of some of the world's artificial languages. Then, the paragraph where folkspraak is first mentioned (and as far as I can tell, the only mention): "One of the most recent artificial languages is called folkspraak and is an attempt to create a lingua franca on clean german ground. However, the success has been long in coming: 'Ðe hêl erð hadd ên sprâk on' ðe gelîk worde'. [a translation of Genesis 11:1 'And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech' in Folkspraak]. On a roman basis, a corresponding attempt has been made with the helper-language Lingua Franca Nova.  There the text reads: 'E la tota tera ia ave un sola lingua e la mesma parolas.' [same phrase translated into LFN]"
 * Neutral pending the provision of a link to the Swedish-language source. If one is not forthcoming by the end of this discussion, then delete for lack of notability and verifiability. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 05:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - (I assume) the link to the aforementioned Swedish newspaper article is this. My Swedish is rusty, and I'm having difficulty assessing whether it gets more than a two-sentence mention in the article (I think not).     However, Göteborgs-Posten is, at least in my opinion, a much more reliable source than Omniglot (although ironically their WP articles are the same size). - Aagtbdfoua 01:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My attempts at translating. First, the intro:

If the sentences don't make sense above, the fault is no doubt in my translation. My intent is only to show the amount of coverage folkspraak received in the article. The amount seems trivial to me, although we now appear to be in the grey area of opinion whether: the coverage in the Swedish newspaper is non-trivial; or whether Omniglot.com should be regarded as a respectable source (after reading the author's bio and the WP article I see no evidence this should be treated any differently than a blog and have tagged Omniglot for notability.); or whether the dean's blog is good enough, and here, I think it is, unless there is some dispute that this was actually written by the purported author, so keep

The irony, of course, is when Wikipedia has an article with a lynchpin source from "blogspot.com", it only deepens the perception that it is a second-rate encyclopedia (quoting from the very same article)

Folkspraak and Interlingua are elegant, even beautiful efforts to synthesize languages that educated speakers of their source languages can recognize on sight. In the larger realm of language policy, they are to Encyclopædia Britannica as natural languages, pidgins, and creoles are to Wikipedia. Folkspraak and Interlingua are the products of dedicated, erudite professionals

(heaven help all of us non-dedicated, non-erudite professionals) - Aagtbdfoua 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really, really don't see how a blog can be given any additional weight as a source by the mere fact that the author happens to be a dean. It's still a blog, written by some guy. Please explain. EldKatt (Talk) 09:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Self-published blogs in general are not encyclopedic sources per WP:SPS, though the policy provides the following exception:
 * Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. [emphasis present in original] These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
 * The issue is not whether Chen is a dean, as being a dean at a law school does not make one a professional researcher in a field relevant to linguistics or constructed languages. Chen's faculty page says:
 * A member of the University of Minnesota Law School faculty since 1993, Professor Jim Chen teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, agricultural law, constitutional law, economic regulation, environmental law, industrial policy, legislation, and natural resources law.
 * None of these fields are relevant to the present subject. Chen's blog doesn't warrant use as a source for an encyclopedia article on a constructed language, let alone use as the only source justifying the article's inclusion&mdash;so far, I see no sources with nontrivial coverage that aren't self-published. The Swedish article looks trivial to me, and Omniglot is still just a website put up by some guy, despite its professional-looking design and useful content. -- Schaefer (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 09:57, 19 June 2007 (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.