Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netherlandic sound shift


 * 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. &mdash; Coffee //  have a ☕️ //  beans  // 02:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Netherlandic sound shift

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No mention of this term, anywhere. WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. The source mentioned (Jansen, G, "Het Nederlands") mentions no such thing Kleuske (talk) 20:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've certainly never heard of anything like this. Also, the term "sound shift" is normally reserved for a systematic change of phonemes, whereas this is just a collection of some unrelated sound changes that happened to occur in a certain language area. It doesn't seem at all notable to me, definitely needs sources to establish notability. Rua (mew) 21:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * A source has been added referencing all three terms used here for the title. The original German in that particular source, makes use of "Lautverschiebung" which I've translated with "sound shift", another option would have been "constant shift" but the examples listed (see Janssen) include more than just consonants. It is however, a systematic shift. The concept itself is present in most modern linguistic works which deal with Old Dutch, as completion of these sound changes can be taken as the start of Old Dutch proper, following its Frankish proto-stage. Also, as mentioned in the article, it is used to differentiate between Old Saxon/Old High German and Old Dutch, in addition to the much large, intricate and studied HGCS. I've created the article as a start, I'm planning to expand on it more. I'd like to note though, that I've got strong personal indications that this is WP:POINT-nomination by Kleuske, who I sadly had to report for making a personal attack a mere hour ago. I would like to add more source material now, but am quite tired at the moment and would like to make this a promise for now. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 21:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * At least one of those sources (Janssen, the only one readily available) does not mention the term AT ALL. ""Niederlandische Lautverschiebung" does not deliver any results either (Scholar, google, DuckDuckGo, etc). The term is mentioned nowhere in either google scholar or elsewhere. You got two weeks (generally) to come up with something better than just claiming it exists and delivering and casting aspersions. Kleuske (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You're not a moderator Kleuske. Just another Wikipedian, and a Wikipedian with a history of personal conflict and disrespectful behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia for that matter. I'd ask you to refrain from barking orders to fellow contributors, let alone formulating ultimatums to volunteers. Janssen is used for its clear formulation of the changes (page 58 onwards) and online availability, a quick reference for the table presented. A source mentioning the terms, has already been added. Luckily it was still on my desk. More sources will follow, as soon as possible, when I have the time. Regardless of your personal deadline and shouting. Cheers, AKAKIOS (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Move to AKAKIOS's userspace, so that he can properly source the article. Can you guys not argue whenever you encounter each other? Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. AKAKIOS has been banned, so there's no other option than deleting the article. Unless someone is interested in improving its sourcing? Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * AKAKIOS is actually blocked rather than banned, and could fairly easily be unblocked. But if the article is deleted before that happens, they could request a restoration into their userspace. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, there's a difference. If that happens, I'll support the restoration. Mr KEBAB (talk) 13:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Question — The article nl:Klankverschuivingen in de Germaanse talen (Sound shifts in the Germanic languages), which is unsourced, and the article nl:Ingveoonse talen (Ingvaeonic languages) describe several sound shifts for the Ingvaeonic languages Dutch, English, and Frisian. Generally speaking the historical sound shifts of these languages seem appropriate topics for Wikipedia. While searching the web, I found some publications discussing these shifts. In which English Wikipedia articles, already existing or not, could these be best described? – Editør (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That (probably) refers to Grimm's law. Other candidates include Holtzmann's law, Sievers' law and Verner's law, but I'm not going to figure that out right now. I'm not contesting the phenomenon of 'sound shift' exists, I contest there's such a thing as the "Netherlandic sound shift", since it's not mentioned by any sources. Kleuske (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the title of this article was ill-chosen, but its content doesn't seem to be complete nonsense. The sound shifts in the laws you mention are all about the Proto-Germanic language. What I understand is that the Ingvaeonic languages developed from this language and consequentially their sound shifts would be different ones that occurred later in time. – Editør (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't complete nonsense and one of the sources ("Het Nederlands vroeger en nu", Janssen, G.) does mention the shifts specified. It's just that the term does not exist. If you can come up with a title that a) can actually be properly sourced and b) describes this set of shifts, feel free to rename the article and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. I doubt you can, though. Kleuske (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2017 (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.