Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roscinda Nolasquez


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- Dane 2007  talk 22:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Roscinda Nolasquez

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Like Articles for deletion/Boa Sr., I don't think that being the last known speaker of a language is sufficient to pass WP:BIO. Again, it's not a "well-known and significant award or honor" and I don't think we can say that the *person* has made a "widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" as the only mention is that she made "a serious effort" late in life which isn't that specific. Otherwise the sole reliable sources here does go into detail about her but entire notability is basically a mix of being inherited from the language's notability and her longevity alone. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Wrong forum Either merge it to Cupeño language or the content contributors may decide to leave it standalone.  There is nothing for AfD to consider here.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with deletion? There's nothing more than at best a single sentence about the last known speaker and even then it's not like there's a need for a List of Cupeño language speakers article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that there is no other policy basis for a deletion, are you arguing for a WP:IAR deletion? We assume the good faith of our content contributors, for one, and WP:AGF is a policy.  The nutshell of WP:Editing policy states, "Preserve the value that others add, even if they 'did it wrong' (try to fix it rather than delete it)."  WP:DEL8 does not apply when the topic can be redirected.  WP:IAR is used to improve the encyclopedia, but deletion here IMO would do damage to the encyclopedia.  Have you considered that if you think this topic is non-notable, you can merge the topic and see if anyone objects?  If they object and you don't agree, you can request an RfC on the talk page of the article.  RfC is specifically mentioned in WP:Deletion policy.  Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would there be a need for a redirect? Yes, I think this topic is not notable and no why should I have to engage in a month-old RFC to see if someone else objects to whether this is a notable topic? The policy basis is that just being the last speaker isn't enough for WP:BIO and there's no indication that this person passes WP:GNG so the person doesn't pass the standards required for WP:N. How is that NOT a policy based reason for deletion? What are you arguing for? If "being the last speaker" is sufficient for WP:BIO on its own, then someone can write that into WP:BIO but otherwise how is this the wrong forum? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to insist on a WP:IAR argument for deletion, that is your choice. But any argument that there is any other way to get this topic deleted on a policy basis at AfD is IMO without merit.  References to WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:GNG, are irrelevant in a deletion discussion when they don't rise to the level of WP:DEL8.  If you are convinced that this topic would be deleted as a redirect, you can skip the non-policy arguments at AfD by merging the article and then taking the redirect to RfD for deletion.  I am wondering what your deletion argument would be there.  As for the WP:IAR argument, I have already stated that IMO such a deletion would do damage to the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What are you arguing about? This isn't an IAR argument, WP:DEL8 explicitly says that "this doesn't meet the requirements of WP:BIO, WP:N or WP:GNG" is a reason to delete. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you are arguing that you don't have an argument at RfD for why this redirect can be deleted, and your view of WP:Deletion policy is derived by taking WP:DEL8 out of its context? Have you read WP:BEFORE A1?  "Prior to nominating article(s) for deletion, please be sure to:...A. Read and understand these policies and guidelines...1. The Wikipedia deletion policy, which explains valid grounds for deletion as well as alternatives to deletion and the various deletion processes"  Unscintillating (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a redirect so RFD would be the wrong forum. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can't make a deletion argument for RfD, you don't have a deletion argument for AfD; i.e., the correct forum is not a deletion forum. Unscintillating (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as nothing suggesting merging or keeping entirely since there are no actually convincing claims of substance from her "best known as the last speaker". SwisterTwister   talk  05:54, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article is a mere stub currently, this particular speaker is also a published author on the language, and a long time collaborator with Jane Hill, a well-known linguist who wrote a grammar of the language. Personally, I think any person known to have been the last speaker of a language is worthy of an article, but that argument could be had elsewhere, as Nolasquez is notable for other reasons. I will add some citations to the article, hopefully my efforts won’t be in vain. babbage (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What secondary sourced evidence is there that Nolasquez is a published author? The mention is in the second citation citing the work itself which is a primary source for that point. She's not an academic from what I can tell so is her authorship related entirely to her work with the other linguists? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:45, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep (change from Redirect to Cupeño language. But both articles should be expanded, as they are rather sparse. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * Keep. There is sufficient material in the references to expand thate article. A person can become notable though their specific historical situation, and just a first person to ... is accepted as notability if the first is important enough, so should we accept last .... DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment & ping : this source states that the subject was one of the last speakers of the language: Investigating Obsolescence: Studies in Language Contraction and Death. On the other hand, the same source does cite a 1973 book by "Hill and Nolasquez", so she could be considered a published author? K.e.coffman (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are actually 2 books: see Worldcat, : I'i Muluwet:: first book of words in the Cupeño Indian Language of Southern California.  by Roscinda Nolasquez and Anne Galloway ; edited by Susan Norwood. Pala, Calif: Alderbooks, 1975. and Mulu'wetam: the first people: ; Cupeño oral history and language. Edited by Jane H. Hill and Rosinda Nolasquez. Banning, Calif., Malki Museum Press, 1973 . I doubt they are really enough for the usual sort of notability as an author, but they should certainly be included in the article.  DGG ( talk ) 04:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and K.e.Coffman's arguments. I also believe that we should establish a guidline that the last known speakers of a language are notable because of the attention from academia and the media they receive as well as their contributions to linguistics. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Strongly agree, both with the keep argument and the proposed guideline that being the last known speaker of a language is de facto notability. DS (talk) 17:00, 11 August 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.