Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Saxon Spelling


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

New Saxon Spelling

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable spelling system, as far as I can tell. I've Googled "new saxon spelling", "nysassiske skryvwyse", and the names given to this system in the Dutch and German Wikipedia articles about it. (It's undergoing a deletion discussion on the latter.) I also searched for the name of the stated predecessor, "algemeyne schryvwys", and even "warkgruppe as2.0" and "werkgruppe as2.0". All searches yield practically no evidence of coverage in any context. The "literature" and the sole reference provided all seem to deal with the language(s) that this spelling convention was created for, but not with the convention itself. Largoplazo (talk) 00:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (contribs · mail) 02:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (contribs · mail) 02:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  J  947  (contribs · mail) 02:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - given lack of references and nom's inability to find confirmation, this seems like original research.--Rpclod (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - This spelling is being used actively or rolled out on a variety of websites, such as www.wearldsproake.nl, as well as on various types of social media. This New Saxon Spelling is intended to unite writers of this language for both sides of the border, with intent to unite the two existing Low Saxon wikipedias into one. It is fitting you can't find anything on it, because that's precisely why this spelling has been developed; most people write in their own local variety, so whatever you Google, it won't come up. This spelling seeks offer better indexing options. Woolters (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, just so: under Wikipedia policy, article topics must be notable, which, in Wikipedia's odd use of the word, basically means having already achieved note. As stated in the general notability guidelines, that generally calls for substantial coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources, not only on websites that have been set up to promote or disseminate the topic. Even if a number of websites are using the spelling, Wikipedia doesn't make its own observations as to whether something is being used—it waits until appropriate sources have reported on that phenomenon, and takes its cues from them. (Also, social media don't usually count as reliable sources.) Wikipedia isn't a vehicle for rolling out a new initiative. This is in no way a judgment on the merits of the initiative, nor a prediction that it won't spread and become notable some day, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if a topic may meet the notability guidelines some day, we wait until that time comes to have an article on it. Largoplazo (talk) 12:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your quick response, the new spelling has been covered in the latest edition of Taalpost, a mailing of language-related news by the Dutch official Genootschap Onze Taal. On their Facebook page, The Reur Foundation, a Low Saxon language-related festival, have expressed interest in implementing it. Woolters (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Anyone traveling the Low Countries, know the need for this and understand it's usefulness. Wish it was expanded to compare to the West Frisian language as well, but perhaps with time.  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To supplement my earlier comments, however useful something is, or however useful it is to have information on it, topics here have to be notable. See WP:ITSUSEFUL. Largoplazo (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. "Usefulness" is not a criteria and underscores that this is probably not mature enough, if not original research.--Rpclod (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Linguistic articles that show the overlap and intersections between languages are notable and also useful as any other comparison of West Germanic languages (including English). Ask any speaker of one of the High German languages about the differences and similarities to Barbantian or Pomeranian.  It is notable for showing these overlaps and the odd phonetic spellings, that remind me a bit of Scots.    C. W. Gilmore (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't an article about well-studied and documented comparisons among a family of related dialects languages, which are already covered at Low German. This is an article about a new orthography that's been proposed for them. Largoplazo (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on the link you provided on usefulness, here's why this article is useful: it describes in detail what the orthography is about, why it is needed, what the arguments were for its conception, it provides examples of how it should be used, and it makes comparisons to other orthographies. Not only is this orthography proposed, it is being used actively, and has been noted, as I have tried to show you. Woolters (talk) 16:13, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The point of that essay section is that showing that something is useful doesn't cause it to meet the criteria for inclusion. As I have tried to show you, notability is the requirement that is not being met. You did provide a couple of links above, but one is just a Facebook page and the other has a four-line blurb saying that users of the Low German/Dutch Wikipedia are working with a new spelling system designed with readability, not pronunciation, in mind. This is fairly light coverage, lacking the required depth.
 * Also, it sounds as though you might intend for the article to serve as a vehicle for advocating for this new spelling system. Wikipedia articles aren't for advocacy. Largoplazo (talk) 16:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not question the motives of others, this is not good faith. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A mere "it sounds as though you might ..." followed by guidance to a person who might have been unaware that there would be a problem with advocacy if advocacy was what that person had in mind, in a context in which that user and another have been repeatedly advocating the use of this spelling system, making it seem a not unreasonable possibility that that might be a motivation for having the article, is not a failure to assume good fait. It's reacting in a commensurately tentative, conditional fashion to what I see going on in front of my eyes. Largoplazo (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you were familiar with Low Saxon, you could read that the Facebook page I linked to legitimises the new spelling and aims to start using it. The Wearldsproake.nl link shows a gradual implementation throughout everything they've published over the last few months. Not by explicitly mentioning it (though there is one article that does by calling it the 'Algemeyne Skryfwyze', see last paragraph), but by simply writing everything they publish in it. Strong enough coverage, in my opinion. I think the summary of an article's validy is: when the subject is out there, and settled in. Well, it is. And increasingly so. Woolters (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As I've attempted to explain, simply being "out there" doesn't qualify a topic for a Wikipedia article. I haven't been debating with you whether this spelling convention is "out there" or not, whether it's "legitimate", whether one or two or three websites have adopted it for their use (by the way, why do you assume I can't read the announcement on that Facebook page? I made most of it out pretty well.); I'm not doubting any of that. Nor is this a discussion of what Wikipedia's inclusion criteria should be. This scope of this discussion is the disposition of the article based on what Wikipedia's inclusion criteria are, as set forth in its policies and guidelines. Largoplazo (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

What is so wrong with an article charting the local evolution of spelling and doing it in real time, this article ain't aboot the French language that is strickly governed, but the Low-German/Dutch overlaps of spelling and speach. Like English, it is much more fluid and like Scots, it attempts to spell it as it sounds. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm going to try this one more time, and then I'm going to unwatch this discussion: This is not about the merits of the writing system. I am not questioning the value of this writing system. This is about WP:Notability. I know the article was written in good faith, in sincerity, and with enthusiasm, and I understand that, for that reason, this is discouraging, but, as it happens, Wikipedia topics have to meet the WP:Notability guidelines. Language is one of my favorite subjects (which you can probably figure out from my earlier remark that I was largely capable of reading the Nedersaksies, having studied and spoken both Dutch and German, which probably isn't true of most Americans who don't have an interest in languages); I agree that the common writing system is a great idea; and I would love to have this article here if the writing system were to turn out to meet the WP:Notability guidelines. But I can't find any sign that, at this time, it does. Can you? If you or someone else can and does, then the article will remain, and that'll be great. Largoplazo (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Largoplazo, but just want to re-iterate that notability must be supported by "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That is not my language or that of Largoplazo - that is from the definitive Wikipedia page.  Find those, add them to article as references, and I for one will be satisfied.  But they are not currently there.--Rpclod (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hear my grandpa saying, "A staigh air an dala cluais 's amach air a' chluais eile." as I read through these responses. When is the changing of a language or dialect, not notable?  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about an evolving language or dialect, though. The language(s)/dialect(s) in question are already covered by another article. This article is about a recently invented writing system proposed for them and adopted by perhaps a few websites. Largoplazo (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Onel 5969  TT me 15:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep, although I have to admit that sourcing leaves much to be improved. It's obvious that this article does not meet the notability criteria for a standalone article. However, the subject is significant enough to merit elaboration on the Low Saxon language page, and from that point of view, I'd rather treat it is a subsection that was (or rather: could have been) split off from the main article for reasons of balance. Since not every piece of information in an article has necessarily to be run through all notability filters, the same goes for such sections-turned-articles as well. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  22:47, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're quite mistaken, actually. "Notability filters" provided under the guidelines that don't have to be applied to an article section do have to be applied to an article. If they aren't applied to articles, then what would they be applied to? Per WP:CONSPLIT, "If one or more of the topics is not notable on its own, it may be more appropriate to simply remove the material from Wikipedia than to create a new article." In other words, if a main article is so long that even sections about topics that aren't independently notable should be removed from it, then they are probably too low a lever of detail even for that topic. Largoplazo (talk) 18:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete: I'm not sure that I would categorize the sourcing as "leaves much to be improved". There's a grand total of one source for a rather long article. I agree that a lot of enthusiasm and care went into the creation of this article, however it just doesn't meet WP:GNG. I do agree that a short summary (based on the one source offered) at Low Saxon language might be appropriate. Waggie (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2018 (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.