Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldest 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 of the debate was no consensus to delete the article. Mailer Diablo 10:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Oldest Language
This article claims that Tamil is the oldest language and does not cite sources. I do feel it does not enhance Wikipedia in any way as it is presently written Fil e  Éireann 15:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, POV and in its present form it is nonsense (though that may or may not be the case if it was oldest surviving language). MLA 15:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the new quality version by Smerdis of Tlön per Craig Stuntz below MLA 15:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete due to WP:V and because it appears to be contradicted by Tamil language.--Craig Stuntz 16:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Provisional keep of Smerdis of Tlön version provided that all of the original article is removed. --Craig Stuntz 17:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research with no sources, citations or references provided for the linguistics researcher.  (aeropagitica)   16:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Linguistic research has concluded that the oldest languages are almost certainly part of the Khoisan family. I don't think Tamil would even come close. Grandmasterka 16:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't let that pass. Linguistic research has concluded no such thing. The idea of "oldest language" makes no sense. No language is older than any other. All languages change; they all have developed out of some older variety. Khoisan languages or their ancestors may have been in situ longer than others in the area, but they are no older. That argument applies to Tamil too, of course, so  Delete . rodii 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete, original research, and a possibly interesting but vague subject where results will vary depending on how you define what you're looking for. Sumerian is the oldest language for which texts have survived; I don't think there are any written records from 16000 BC.  I know that some have suggested that Elamite might have been Dravidian, it ain't Tamil.  This text will not help anyone write a better article.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Waidaminnit! I have drawn up a proposed rewrite of the article now here, which appears below the original text now.  Smerdis of Tlön 16:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Much, much better! Changing my vote to keep the Smerdis of Tlön version. I still disagree with some of the assertions, and it needs sources, but that can be addressed by editing, not deletion. Great save. rodii 17:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per MLA. -- S iva1979 Talk to me  17:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pavel Vozenilek 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR.--Isotope23 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, this content is not salvagable, and if somebody were to write a real article under that title, its main content would have to be to explain how the whole concept of an "oldest language" is inherently not meaningful. Perhaps I'll try my hand at that some day, but not now. Lukas (T. 20:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Lukas. JoshuaZ 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep. New version is much better if used. JoshuaZ 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. It would make an interesting article if citations were provided, but otherwise, it is useless per POV speculation. &mdash;Eternal Equinox | talk 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - linguistic garbage. I note that Tamil chauvinism is indeed an interesting topic, though.  Morwen - Talk 00:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the re-written version. Carlossuarez46 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the re-write, which is astonishingly better than the original. Note that most of the delete votes above probably saw only the (very delete-worthy) original.  Zompist 07:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep the rewrite. Stifle 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep rewritten article. - Rynne 15:24, 23 February 2006 (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.