Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern Gaulish


 * 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. Consensus is that this constructed language has insufficient coverage in reliable sources to be notable. In closing this discussion I have ignored the walls of text posted by the article creator because (a) as a person involved with creating the language he has a conflict of interest with respect to the topic, and (b) they are walls of text. Seriously, people, be concise. Anyway, there are only two other "keep" opinions, and they are insubstantial in terms of policy, with one merely asserting rather than arguing notability, and the other arguing the merits of the language, which is irrelevant for inclusion.  Sandstein  20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Modern Gaulish

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable constructed language posing as a modern continuation of reconstructed ancient Gaulish. Massively WP:OR and unsourced. Was first posted as a large textdump addition at Gaulish language by a new account, then split into a standalone article by another editor. I have not been able to find even a single instance of independent published coverage of this "language"; everything that exists about it is self-published by its inventor (who is very likely also the person who posted it here.) Note that the seemingly impressive list of academic references is quite irrelevant – all of them are merely treatments of actual, historical Gaulish; none of them mentions Modern Gaulish; the entire article content explaining M.G. in relation to historical Gaulish is pure WP:OR. The only reference to a publication ostensibly dealing with modern constructed languages, currently footnote 1 in the infobox, is also misleading, as it doesn't mention M.G. either; linking the classification discussed in that paper with M.G. is yet another OR move. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything to suggest that there are any independent secondary sources about this, so I think we have to conclude it is an effort to use wp as a website, and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Delete. JMWt (talk) 15:28, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh, Delete. Pure OR. Not even good OR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just a note that User:Evertype, the creator of the article under discussion, self-identifies as Michael Everson (which article is well worth reading). He evidently is not the inventor of the language. This doesn't make the topic notable, of course, but I'd expect Evertype to be able to make a convincing case for the retention of the article – he has been here long enough to know our rules! It would be helpful if he could explain who is, too. —S MALL  JIM   17:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, when I mentioned the "inventor of the language", I was referring to the Steve Gwiriu account, the person who first added the material to the parent article, not of course to Evertype. The inventor is identified in the article as one "Steve Hansen"; on their Facebook account (linked to from the article) he writes under the moniker of "Steve Gwiríu Mórghnath Hansen"; so it's easy to conclude that "Steve Hansen" and "Steve Gwiriu" are the same person. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep and let the newbies make a case for it. I came across this conlang on Facebook; the FB group has 173 members, and a number of the participants are quite skilled in the language, and in fact they have embarked on a translation of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, which is a lot of work and a good test of a conlang's utility. I myself have supported other conlangs with publications of Alice translations in Esperanto, Lingwa de Planeta, Neo, Lingua Franca Nova, Sambahsa, and Volapük (forthcoming). As conlangs go, this Modern Gaulish is well-developed and robust. The group have some websites of their own. Last night Steve wrote this article and appended it to the Gaulish language page. I warned that it might make a better stand-alone article than an addition to the Gaulish language article. One of the users of Modern Gaulish thought to write an encyclopaedia article, which I think is reasonable. The article needs revision, yes, It was (quite properly) deleted from the Gaulish language page (though a bit summarily). I rescued it and put it here. I didn't write it. I didn't edit it thoroughly. I knew that in the ordinary way of things the article would be improved. What I'd really NOT like the Wikipedia community to do is demoralize these creative people for not being veteran Wikipedians. There are a zillion conlangs; most are hardly complete and practically useless. This one is different. It's got an active community and is being actively developed, just as some of the other conlangs that I've published in are. No, my interest in a Wikipedia article on Modern Gaulish is NOT about potential book sales to me, though I am part of the Alice industry. If the forthcoming Alice sells anywhere near 173 copies I would be very surprised indeed. Harshness like an immediate deletion, however, of an article which has essentially had ONE DRAFT and no opportunity for the authors to get feedback and respond to it, including finding references to demonstrate notability, is the kind of mean-spirited harshness that turns a lot of people off of this encyclopaedia. I recommend strongly that this article be provisionally kept for a period of time. Let's allow the newbies to make an attempt to improve it, please? (By the way, the infobox came from the Brithenig article; I put it there and did not check the link. It was a busy morning; I have edited it to remove the link.) Now, as far as the OR content of the article, yes. To prepare the conlang, processes were applied to turn Gaulish into Modern Gaulish—just as Latin was turned into Brithenig. Yes, it needs to be rewritten less as a sales pitch and more descriptively. Let the article develop a bit, please. Lots of the articles on conlangs are a little bit iffy, but people come to this encyclopaedia to learn about them and that's to the good. Let's not give the finger to this group of conlangers, all right? It can always be deleted later if it cannot be improved with external sources and reasonable editing. Thank you for your attention. -- Evertype·✆ 22:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Link to the Modern Gaulish Facebook Group. Note that other conlang groups also use Facebook for discussion. -- Evertype·✆ 22:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't see much in this beyond a WP:ILIKEIT argument. Surely you are aware that the criterion for an article is not how well developed the language is or how worthy of support its community is. The criterion is how much outside, independent published coverage of it there is, nothing else. And I don't see how in this respect there's much potential for improvement worth waiting for – it's not as if those published sources are somewhere around the corner and the author just didn't get round to adding them; I checked and it's pretty clear already there aren't any. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:35, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


 * those are not policy arguments we can consider in deletion reviews. It doesn't matter, for the purposes of assessing notability, whether there are a whole load of people discussing this language on facebook. As the WP:GNG states, the way we assess pages is to consider whether they've been noted in independent, secondary WP:RS. It sounds to me like a worthwhile project, just not one (yet) that has been covered in reliable unconnected media, so not one (yet) that we can have a page for it on wikipedia. JMWt (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the above, it has to be delete. A move to draft space would be an option if there was a commitment to actively work on it there both to improve it and (most importantly) to demonstrate its notability – though the latter doesn't look as if it's going to be possible at present.  —S MALL  JIM   09:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm having a bit of a conflict here. The conlanger in me can easily recognise the value of this language as being one of the best and most interesting specimens of our craft created during recent years, and I absolutely believe it will gain a well-deserved place in conlang history. From that point of view, I definitely want the article to be preserved. As a wikipedian, however, I can see that without any significant independent coverage this article has little chance for survival. The language is impressive, the website is gorgeous and the Facebook group is remarkable, but what we miss are independent sources that establish the notability of the project. I would hate it to see this article disappear, but at the moment Wikipedia is perhaps not the best place for it, also because the current format of the article isn't exactly according to Wikipedia's standards (external links in the text, a bibliography that doesn't cover the subject itself, etc.). I would therefore suggest moving it to a safer place (for example wiki.frath.net) for the time being and moving it back here once notability and verifiability are no longer an issue. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  23:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep Notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -EggSalt (talk) 18:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 *  Author reply: I am the author of the original article on modern Gaulish. I posted it in good faith, to indicate the existence of something I consider worthwhile. I had not previously had anything to do with Wikipedia, other than consulting it as a well appreciated and much esteemed source of information on a multitude of things. I was not aware of the guidelines applied to determine whether something merits inclusion in Wikipedia, nor of the standards or conventions considered desirable for the format of an article. As it is it’s been a learning experience, and I now understand the guidelines pertaining to notability, original research and secondary independent resources. When I wrote the article I included the references to websites in the body of the article not as a sales pitch or a promotion gimmick, but to illustrate the extent to which the language is established, developed and used by people. They are, moreover, the main references to the language in the world at large. I understand that it is considered that these references are “self-published”, and that they are therefore inadmissible according to the Wikipedia guidelines. I also understand that the Wikipedia guidelines indicate that information on a topic needs to be available from what are considered to be reputable sources, understood to be articles in newspapers, magazines, academic journals, features in radio or television, or academic databases on-line or off-line. Furthermore, I understand that said articles or features are not allowed to be produced by agents that are considered to have been involved in the production or generation of the subject at hand, and that it is considered impermissible to publish material that is considered original research. So should the Wikipedia community decide to axe this article I will understand the reasons offered for doing so. However, I would like to point out that in this day and age, when the internet is a vast medium for communication, publication and exchange of information between millions of people, it does not seems fair or reasonable to discount websites and other on-line presences (such as social media) as valid sources of information, in favour of established “old school” avenues of publication such as journals, papers, radio or television. All the more so since it is the medium that allows the very existence of Wikipedia. Furthermore, it also doesn’t seem to be entirely reasonable to insist on gauging the existence or validity of a subject by whether or not it has been reported on by a third, independent and neutral party. While I understand the desire for transparency and neutrality that informs this guideline, it also seems to me that insisting this be the case would deny public acknowledgement to small, minor topics that may nevertheless be of interest to a lot of people if they knew about it. The notion of secondary sources, while again understandable from the point of view of transparency, objectivity and neutrality, is also counter productive in the case of the modern Gaulish language, because it could be extended to include anyone involved in the development of the language: any number of the speakers and users of the language could report on the language they use, and be described as being “involved in the development” of the project, which makes it a circular argument. Is a speaker of a minority language entitled to write an article about their language, about the state it is in, and about the issues they face for the preservation of their language, or do they have to wait until an official third party with recognisable academic credentials do so? If the latter is the case, there may well be languages out there dying a quiet death while they are being denied the opportunity to be recognised. Because, and bringing us around to the important subject of notability, the modern Gaulish language, subject of the article and debate at hand, represents a genuine drive to revive an extinct ancient language. It aims at the revival of a language and aspects of a culture, which, for whatever reason, is considered important to a lot of people around the world. There is a growing number of people who are affiliated with this language and its development, and use it as a vehicle of communication. It is therefore a living thing, a means of human interaction, and it has grown from the remains of a language and a culture that, in spite of having been extinct for a very long time, continues to be imbued with meaning to people. Personally I would say that this makes it notable enough to merit mention by Wikipedia, even if it has not been remarked upon by sources outside of the community of users of the language. However, there are several sources available that attest to the existence of the language, and its use: there is a website detailing its grammar, a dictionary detailing its vocabulary, and a Facebook group detailing its ongoing use by people; there is also a page on Academia.edu which not only lists the language’s grammar but also several research articles dealing with it and related topics, and which has been in the top 4% of most consulted material on Academia.edu for a long time; and there is a published collection of works composed in the language, available from Amazon, and purchased by a number of people around the world. I freely admit that all of these sources are published by the people who are active in the language: but does that make it any less notable? Trawling the internet will reveal instances where the language is discussed, used, remarked upon and propagated; but none of these are in the form of academic articles or newspaper features. But does that mean it does not exist, or is not notable? In terms of the format in which the article is presented, that can be adapted to meet Wikipedia criteria. The list of academic references included serves to illustrate the way in which the modern language is derived from the old language; the sources in it do not discuss the existence of the modern language itself, but the list nevertheless provides an important and vital link to the old language, and that’s why it’s there. The article can be rewritten to reflect Wikipedia standards if required. As I am new to Wikipedia I am not familiar with the process of deciding whether or not an article is to be deleted: is it a matter of public vote, and, if so, who votes? Finally, I have always held Wikipedia in great esteem and would appreciate it if the article was retained. For those of you who would like to access the sources dealing with modern Gaulish, to determine whether or not they are valuable sources, here’s the list:
 * 1. www.moderngaulish.com  (grammar)
 * 2. www.glosbe.com/mis_gal/en/ (dictionary)
 * 3. www.facebook.com/groups/moderngaulishlanguage/ (forum)
 * 4. https://independent.academia.edu/ModernGaulish (academia.edu page)
 * 5. http://www.memrise.com/course/802166/modern-gaulish-1/ (a Memrise course, a language learning tool)
 * 6. For the Amazon publication, google “Anthologia Gallica”.
 * Steve Gwiriu (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Steve Gwiriu (talk) 06:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this lucid reply. Let me start with pointing out that nobody is questioning your good faith. It's an interesting and well-written article, and if it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards, that's not a matter of quality but rather of approach. Like I said, I would regret it if it were lost, so let me repeat my suggestion to move it in its current form to http://wiki.frath.net.
 * Typically, encyclopedic articles about constructed languages should answer some basic questions. Who created it? When? Why? How many people use it? Where is it used? Are there institutions linked to it? Some history of the movement. &c. &c. &c. On the other hand, there's no need to present the entire "Grand Master Plan", because that's something that belongs rather on the website. Same goes for the sources used in the creation process (the bibliography). The grammar description shouldn't be overly detailed either.
 * Now, I agree with you that sources like a private website, Academia.edu and even Facebook shouldn't necessarily discarded as sources. And they aren't, it's just that these are primary sources, which basically means that they are not considered reliable as long as there aren't any secondary sources telling they are. To put it bluntly: anyone can put up a website and call it "Modern Gaulish", which proves nothing but the fact that there is a such a website. It doesn't prove that the information presented there is accurate. Furthermore, anyone can establish a Facebook group and add members to it, but it wouldn't prove anything but that fact that such a group exists at all. Of course, one might start reading/counting messages to establish how many members are active, and to establish if this is even the same language project as the one presented on the website – but that would be original research, something Wikipedia doesn't allow. How reliable Facebook is as a source, is also exemplified by the fact that no less than 8300 people claim to speak Volapük and 16000 people claim to speak Brithenig.
 * Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable and reliable, because otherwise it qualifies as original research. This means that we are not allowed to write about our own experiences, ideas and theories. That is also the case if you write them down on a website or a blog first, because the only thing that would prove is that person X writes Y on website Z, yet it would not be proof that the information is accurate. That's why we take information for granted only if reliable, independent third-party sources say so. The same goes mutatis mutandis also for notability; we simply cannot take for granted that an organisation, sports club, rock band or internet community is notable just because its members say it is. Notability therefore can and should only be established by others.
 * In other words, I'm afraid this is simply a matter of Too soon. However, given the size and quality of the project, I'm sure it won't go unnoticed and it's only a matter of time before all the necessary sources will be available. Best, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  10:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply, IJzeren Jan. I understand. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources referring to modern Gaulish Here's a list of secondary sources that refer to the modern Gaulish language in some way or other. Please have a look and let me know whether they are any use for the purpose of this discussion.


 * 1. https://adruidway.wordpress.com/category/modern-gaulish/
 * 2. http://omniglot.com/writing/gaulish.htm
 * 3. https://www.reddit.com/r/Gaulish/comments/3gwqso/modern_gaulish_1_orthography_and_phonology/
 * 4. http://gallaic.com/revivals.php
 * 5. https://www.androidpit.com/app/ru.vddevelopment.ref.enmis_galen
 * 6. https://bellodunon.com/2013/06/16/galathach-hatheviu-modern-gaulish/
 * 7. http://justgaulishthings.tumblr.com/
 * 8. http://tolkien-inspiration.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/ring-verse-in-50-languages.html
 * 9. http://www.amazon.com/Anthologia-Gallica-Senobrixta-Gal%C3%A1thach-hAthev%C3%ADu-Poetry/dp/1511644265
 * 10. http://esbuzz.net/trends/video/the-gaulish-language-is-alive-again
 * 11. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV-mTvteuR4&list=PLhTUHvgCLoUAEmRsQ9imUkR0JdoxWkq6K - primary source]
 * 12. https://www.scribd.com/doc/264069103/Conlangs-Monthly-May-Edition
 * Steve Gwiriu (talk) 12:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Notable and robust enough for a stub compared to many other conlangs. The article as it stands is not particularly good. It sounds as I have said a few times a bit like a sales pitch and lacks a little neutrality. As far as Constructed languages go, it is as robust as some on the Wikipedia, and there are historical conlangs which have articles about them which will never be more than stubs. A lot is said about "policy" above but as everyone knows every Wikipedia "rule" is really a "guideline" so that's why I objected to the AfD appearing only hours after the article was posted. Here's what I think. I think that there WILL be a translation of Alice into Modern Gaulish, and that will place it immediately into notability. It will go onto Translations of Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. I think the best thing here is to move the bulk of the article to a sandbox but to leave a stub here. NOT to delete the article entirely. The Wikipedia certainly has worse stubs than this one would be. Jan's comments echo mine about giving basic data about who devised the conlang and when and where. -- Evertype·✆ 13:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Aside The overwhelming majority of the 8300 users of Volapük on Facebook are actually Danes, in whose language "volapyk" means "nonsense". -- Evertype·✆ 13:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Which makes me kind of curious in which language "Brithenig" means something! Seriously though, I'm not sure if an Alice translation would immediately tipple the balance, but it would certainly contribute a lot. As for Steve's 12 references, I'm afraid these won't fly: most of them are blogs, which (like social media, wikis, postings on mailing lists &c.) are generally unacceptable as sources, unless the author is a person of special authority (see WP:BLOGS). Which, for that matter, doesn't mean a blog cannot be quoted by any means, it's just that things written on a blog can't be taken for facts. What it all boils down to, is that at least the basic framework of the article should be based on reliable sources, and can subsequently be jazzed up with additional material found in primary sources. That way you'll get an article with a fair chance for survival.
 * Michael is right that notability is a guideline, which means that occasional exceptions can be made, although that would require a good motivation. Practically, however, it is increasingly treated as a hard rule anyway, causing deletions like Modern Indo-European, Talossan and the Language Creation Society. In addition, I should mention that verifiability and no original research (unlike notability) are not guidelines, but hard requirements. I honestly don't think we should be too demanding on conlangs, and we can't expect whole libraries to be written about a conlang, unless we'd want to end up with articles on Esperanto and Volapük only. So let's say that three examples of non-trivial coverage in reliable (preferably scientific) sources could already do the trick. In the meantime, it would probably be best to temporarily park the article in someone's user space, as Michael suggested (I'm willing to volunteer: User:IJzeren Jan/Modern Gaulish language). I wouldn't object against leaving a stub either, but I'm afraid the current article doesn't answer the most basic questions of who and when. A good example of a decent stub would be the leading section of Lingwa de planeta.
 * More than ten years ago, we've been trying to establish a set of criteria to determine notability of conlangs. See WP:Conlangs. It didn't work out then. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to give it another try? Best, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  14:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * blogs as source: if blogs can't be accepted as sources that would immediately cut out a huge source of information. It's what I said before about sources on the internet: there is a wealth of information available in informal format, that should not be discarded out of hand. If the aim is to have secondary sources, surely a blog should be acceptable? Why should a blog be considered of less value than, say, an article in a tabloid newspaper? I agree that it would be nice and certainly preferable to have a scientific article in a peer reviewed journal, but for one that may well be hard to achieve, and for another if only topics with peer reviewed articles were to be published I think a vast amount of topics would become impermissible. One reason why I included blogs is because I found that Brithenig uses a blog as one of its supporting sources: "[Brithenig]... was among the languages recognized in an Economist blog post on constructed languages.[4]". While it is listed under "notes" and not under "references" it is specifically referred to in the introduction of the article, as if considered important. Reading the blog you will find that there is literally one referral to Brithenig with one word, no more. That is not really a robust source, as such. If that is worth including as supporting material then surely the various mentions of modern Gaulish in other blogs are as well. Number 12 of the sources listed above is an issue of a magazine that published an article on modern Gaulish last year. The magazine is an online thing only, and it is not peer reviewed: is it acceptable as a source? I agree that peer-reviewing is some guarantee for reliability, but in the world of publishing there are many other forms of publication out there that may or may not be reliable, while certainly not being peer reviewed: would any and all of them be discounted as being non-academic? If a small town newspaper publishes an high quality article on a topic, would it be dismissed because it is "only" a small town newspaper, or would it be acceptable as a published secondary source? Steve Gwiriu (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The thing with blogs is that anyone can write anything there, making it another self-published and therefore unreliable source. But like I said, there are blogs and blogs. A blog entry written by a recognised authority in the field can most certainly be used. Mind you, I'm playing advocate of the devil here. Personally, I'm not among those who oppose any reference to any blog/forum/mailing list entry, although I do believe that such a reference proves only that somebody wrote something. But for the record, I agree with you about the Brithenig reference in the Economist blog. Merely mentioning a language in an article about constructed languages is hardly what I would call "non-trivial coverage". I'm afraid this kind of references end up in this kind of articles only to protect them against over-eager deletionism. I will remove this one, as it adds nothing to the article anyway. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  13:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete at best as this is still questionable for the necessary improvements and the simply tossed collection of links is certainly not helping. This is best restarted so it's better comprehensible. SwisterTwister   talk  23:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Author: I regret to say that my posts to this forum are being blocked by an automated Wiki mechanism. I have filed an error report and am waiting for a resolution. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 00:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Links: The collection of links are provided as external links, which appears to be quite an acceptable practice in Wikipedia; certainly a lot of articles appear to have them. They are not referred to in the article. They merely provide background information to the issue covered in the article, and illustrate the fact that the language is being used by people. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 00:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Blogs continued: IJzeren Jan, I agree that a blog merely proves that "someone" has said "something", and that there is no guarantee that they have any authority on the subject or know what they're talking about. However, at the top of this AfD forum there's a list of sources that are acceptable to Wiki: they include news, newspapers and JSTOR. I'm sure no one would find it very hard to think of newspapers whose articles are not worth the paper they're printed on; yet, according to the Wiki guideline, they would be acceptable _because_ they are newspaper articles. That does not make sense. Such things would not be more (or less) reliable or useful than blogs; a blog is merely a different version of a newspaper article, or column. JSTOR is also mentioned, and is certainly a great source of academic material. Is Academia.edu considered acceptable? It is very similar to JSTOR, apart from being free. If it is, there is a link to Academia.edu where there are several articles pertaining to modern Gaulish. They are written by me, certainly, but they are listed on Academia.edu, and they are in the top 4% of most consulted content on Academia.edu. Does that have any value? Steve Gwiriu (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Anyone can join Academia.edu. Anyone. And, having joined, anyone can post anything.  Academics post copies of their published articles on Academia.edu as an end run around journal paywalls.  But original material posted there it is no better than a blog post.  That said, a blog post by a distinguished linguist, ancient historian or similar discussing Modern Gaulish in a serious manner can be cited on Wikipedia (sometimes done, for example, with recent archaeological finds), but would have very little weight in establishing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Authority in the field: It has been stated that a blog entry written by an authority in the field can most certainly be used. Last year a book was published in three languages: modern Gaulish, ancient Gaulish and English (Anthologia Gallica, on Amazon). I am one of the two authors, so therefore this would be considered self-publishing. However, the book featured two forewords/introductions, both written by leading experts in the field of the Gaulish language; people who are published, respected, and recognised as experts in their field, and who hold academic positions in that capacity. These forewords are not published independently, they are part of the book, but as such they are publicly available to anyone who cares to access it. Would these forewords be acceptable as references to the existence of the modern Gaulish language, and establish enough notability? This is a serious question: these two people are, respectively, the second and fourth leading expert in the field in the world, and are widely recognised as such.Steve Gwiriu (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Anthologia Gallica: While there is no online version (at this stage) of the two forewords mentioned above, if anyone wants to verify their existence they can visit the Amazon page where the book is listed (the link is in the section "external links"; otherwise google "Anthologia Gallica"). On the Amazon page there is a review written by someone who bought the book; while the opinions expressed in this review are irrelevant to this discussion, the author mentions the two forewords, and mentions their authors by name. I strongly urge anyone who favours deletion of this article to visit that page, and to reconsider their verdict. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources: This is the post that has been consistently blocked from this forum. I have modified it to remove what I think was the offending item: There is another example in the pages of Wiki, which I won’t mention. The article, on a language, lists just two notes as references. One of these is a website that has not existed since 2009, and the other one is a source also provided for modern Gaulish (Omniglot), yet which is claimed to be not good enough. Furthermore, the only other sources (all internet based) given in support for this page are primary sources, including the project's website, social media (a Yahoo group) and a blog, all of which are sources which are declared unacceptable in the case of modern Gaulish. Nevertheless this page has been on Wikipedia for almost two years, and there is no mention of deletion. More importantly and to the point, however, the issue of modern Gaulish is one of language revival: it is aimed at reviving the Gaulish language. It is not an exercise in constructing an artificial language for the hell of it, for entertainment, out of curiosity, or linguistic virtuosity, or creativity, or to produce a work of art. Rather, it is the vehicle for the revival of an entire culture, embraced and considered important by a large group of people around the world. It is a matter of language revival, a drive to revive the Gaulish language in the same way that the Cornish and Hebrew languages have been revived. When Henry Jenner published his pivotal "Handbook Of The Cornish Language" on and for the revival of the Cornish language in 1904, if Wikipedia had existed would it have refused to recognise this event because the book was a primary source, the equivalent of a 21st century website? Steve Gwiriu (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Authority in the field 2:I have added two references by leading authorities in the field of the Gaulish language, David Stifter and Bernard Mees. They can be found in the publication "Anthologia Gallica", published by Amazon. While I am one of the co-authors of the book, the references in question refer to two pieces written by the above authors in forewords. This constitutes two independent secondary references by two leading authorities in the field of Gaulish linguistics, with verifiable credentials, in an independent publication. The credentials of David Stifter and Bernard Mees as respected authorities in the field can be verified by a google search. I can make the full texts available upon request, if desired. Steve Gwiriu (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Although Asterix, Obelix and I are charmed, delete for lack of sources supporting notability. I would reconsider if someone can WP:HEY bring reliable, secondary sources establishing notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliable secondary sources: See comment under "Authority in the field 2". Steve Gwiriu (talk) 11:54, 3 May 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.