Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  Sandstein  16:45, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Folkspraak
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable constructed language with no real-world use or scholarly interest. Article relies entirely on self-published sources; only reliable, third-party source that I could find is a trivial mention in a book, referenced at Pan-Germanic language.

I previously redirected to Pan-Germanic language, but that was reverted by, hence this AfD. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment In a previous AfD discussion, the language's survival of AfD on dewiki was cited as precedent. I note that it was deleted there as well, in the meantime, because the article was considered to contain only OR. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 13:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge or keep Looking over the two previous arguments with deletion, points on both sides were duly noted. I created the Pan-Germanic language page as its basis was both legitimate, was about a collective idea, and collected specific info from the zonal constructed languages page. Points however- it is notable (whatever that means, as it has no objective value) in the world of Pan-Germanicism, zonal constructed languages and has a community larger than many existing natural languages. That it doesn't serve real-world use is arguable and subjective at best; the real question should be whether the existence of this particular article serves real-world use. It certainly has scholarly interest as a broader idea, which is why I created the Pan-Germanic language page. However, as this page does hold info, I propose either simply letting the page be, as it causes no harm, or merge it with the Pan-Germanic page, not simply deleting and redirecting it, similar as to what was done with Middelspraak. JSBrowand13 (talk) 13:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V for the notions of notability and verifiability. Existence and importance of topics have to be established, and information needs to be verifiable to be of any use. I don't think anything on this page that isn't already on Pan-Germanic language is worth keeping, as it's all WP:OR or referenced with self-published sources. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 14:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - no independent verification of notability of the subject. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd rather keep this article myself and I definitely believe the project is significant, but I have to agree that there is little published material available that confirms its notability, let alone to base an Wikipedia article on. For what it is worth, here are two more resources that mention Folkspraak, albeit not entirely non-trivially:
 * Marc Sala i Castells, L'esperanto. Treball de recerca, p. 13: "El folkspraak, per exemple, volia esdevenir la llengua franca dels pobles de parla germànica."
 * Anna-Maria Meyer, Wiederbelebung einer Utopie. Probleme und Perspektiven slavischer Plansprachen im Zeitalter des Internets (Bamberg, 2014), p. 51: "Besonders interessant ist ein neueres Projekt von 1995 mit dem Titel Folkspraak, da es bezüglich seiner Grundidee und Konstruktion Parallelen zu den hier besprochenen neueren slavischen Plansprachenprojekten aufweist. Es handelt sich um ein skandinavisches Internetprojekt, das alle Interessierten zur Mitarbeit auffordert und sich zum Ziel gesetzt hat, eine zonale Plansprache auf der Grundlage der germanischen Sprachen zu entwickeln, die der besseren Verständigung innerhalb der germanischen Sprachgemeinschaft dienen soll. Das Projekt ist jedoch weniger weit ausgearbeitet als die drei im Mittelpunkt dieser Arbeit stehenden slavischen Plansprachenprojekte, und es haben sich aufgrund diverser Uneinigkeiten verschiedene Versionen herausgebildet." &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  01:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The second source actually establishes the Folkspraak project as not being very significant, although it does serve as a third-party reference for the existence of several variants. I've cited it at Pan-Germanic language. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 11:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment 2 - On second thought, I don't think moving material to Pan-Germanic language is such a good idea. I have serious problems with that article. Basically, I think merging stuff is a good thing, but what we see here is a whole lot of completely unrelated projects listed together on one page, shuffled on one big pile, so to speak. I read that "many of them are very similar", which IMO can only be said for the Scandinavian projects. Under "background" I see a description that may work for Folkspraak, but that obviously won't work for f.ex. Tutonish. Furthermore, I see a "flag of modern Pan-Germanicism" that looks like a mix of the flags of the Crimea and the German Empire, and that I have never seen before (let alone seen used in this particular context). Who designed it? Was it adopted by some group or organization, and if so, which, and where's the evidence? And at last, I see a project listed (Skandinavisk) that apparently was published earlier this year. Now I have nothing but respect for the man's hard work, but Google doesn't turn up the slightest evidence that this project exists at all, let alone that it meets any of the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. In other words, what I see here is an article that completely doesn't stick together, about a subject that has probably never been researched as a whole. IMO the best thing we can do here is get rid of all the original research and move the rest to Zonal constructed language. Please note also that this article is basically a continuation of one that was deleted previously, see Articles for deletion/Germanic IAL. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  22:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair to me. I didn't previously check the sources of the other constructed languages on Pan-Germanic language, but both it and Skandinavisk have OR/sourcing problems. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 09:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:25, 28 August 2014 (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.