Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hunnish Language


 * 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 speedy delete. Hoax, only keep argument is by a sockpuppet of the author. Courcelles (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hunnish Language

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is a POV fork (of Hunnic language) making nationalist claims on the basis of a patently non-reliable source. Delete, or redirect to Hunnic language. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:00, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * This article exists because you refuse to listen to any information I have found. I have also 3 sources, not one. This also is not nationalist, it is merely based on information I have found. If you say this is nationalist, then you could argue someone who says it's a Turkic language is nationalist as well. Why don't you read my sources instead of refusing to listen to my opinion. HorseSnack (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:Hoax. --Norden1990 (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Hoax. Article creator has already created a few lame hoaxes like this, in an evident attempt to get an entry in WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. ‎NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hoax (but not necessarily by the author) or not notable by Wikipedia standards (or possibly both). I don't think there is nationalism involved, just making things up somewhere along the line. Possibly this is some sort of conlang thing, but it's not notable if it is. I'd like to see some more academic evidence than conversations on boards involving documents from a possible monastery (doubts are cast in sources) that are allegedly lost or now in the possession of rich Russians and Armenians who will not allow them to be published, or seemingly self-published screeds without apparent peer review. I'm open to being proved wrong. Peridon (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Hoax or Speedy A10 of Hunnic language. Bazj (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting article to read, and the sources look alright and I've even been trying to learn Hunnish. ÉnVagyokTojas (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note to reviewing admins: ÉnVagyokTojas has been blocked as a sockpuppet of HorseSnack. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 23:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per above.--Crovata (talk) 10:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (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.