Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots-Yiddish


 * 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. Wizardman 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Scots-Yiddish

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism seemingly referenced only in a Scots' writer's autobiography that seems to have zero currency; only three hits on the UK Google for the term, one referring to this autobiography. Fails WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:V.  RGTraynor  00:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC) *Delete. While it would certainly be notable if it could be appropriately sourced, it apparently can't be. —Angr 06:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero relevant hits on Google Scholar; seems that no historical linguists are paying attention to this. Looks like it fails WP:N and WP:V. --/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   —--/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 00:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions.   -- Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  03:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability is conspicuously lacking. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable term, not sourced. J I P  | Talk 05:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - obviously since I started it. Yes it can be sourced.  I will add the paragraph from Daiches book, which should be enough for the moment.  Daiches is a very important writer on Scottish culture and is therefore all the authority we need.  He really is a giant.  The paragraph I add will hopefully show that this is a real and interesting phenomenon.  Sorry, I should have done that in the first place. --Doric Loon (talk) 09:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, that's done. Sorry the references weren't there at the beginning, but to be fair if I start an article in the evening I should be allowed until the next morning to get it referenced.  I do object to Google counts being regarded as terribly relevant in this kind of discussion, BTW - though for what it's worth, my Google gives me 78 hits for "Scots-Yiddish", not three!  Anyway, the references are in, judge it on its merits - but please discount the above "delete" votes which were made BEFORE the references were there. --Doric Loon (talk) 10:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Google may give 78 hits (Google.co.uk gave 37) for "Scots-Yiddish", but few give any meaningful information on the subject, which I believe is what RG was referring to when stating "only 3 hits". — Dorvaq (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into History of the Jews in Scotland. It doesn't seem to me that enough has been written about this mixed language (if that's what it is) to support a full article, but a mention in the more general article would be appropriate. —Angr 11:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * comment. I agree, Angr, that there's a big question mark about whether this is a "language". It is certainly a linguistic phenomenon which we ought to cover. I can go with a merge if there is a redirect.--Doric Loon (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. There is no proof of notability here, but the references satisify WP:V. The suggested merge target is reasonable, and should give the author time to expand the information included here. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  12:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Merge leaning toward delete. If the subject fails notability, why even make an entry in the above article? — Dorvaq (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete as WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not here to reflect pet theories of individual historians. No evidence that this exists beyond this single source per WP:V and WP:RS. Eusebeus (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into History of the Jews in Scotland.-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 05:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   --  brew  crewer  (yada, yada) 05:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Definitely a merge contents into History of the Jews in Scotland because it seems genuine, and does not look like original research and because there were Yiddish speakers who went to Scotland at that time and Yiddish most definitely adapts to its native language-culture. See Yinglish as an example. OR Perhaps merge to Yiddish language as well and let the experts over there sort it out. IZAK (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be opposed to merging it into Yiddish language as that would then set a precedent of including in that article a discussion of how Yiddish interacted with every language it ever came in contact with. I think the relevance of this information to History of the Jews in Scotland is much greater than its relevance to Yiddish language (or Scots language, for that matter). —Angr 10:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Angr: Yiddish is a language that is documented as being at least one thousand years old as a fully formed language, and its roots go back as far as German itself in many ways because Jews were already in the areas of Germany 2,500 years ago after the destruction of the 1st Temple in Jerusalem and were definitely there in Roman times. At any rate, my point is that the Yiddish language article on Wikipedia only barely begins to scratch the surface of the history and speaking of Yiddish so that there is no reason why Wikipedia cannot eventually accept articles such as this one and down the line even create a series on the developmenet of Yiddish and its interaction with other languages and cultures. But for now, as long as the contents of this article are preserved somewhere, it's fine with me. IZAK (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into History of the Jews in Scotland. --MacRusgail (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge into History of the Jews in Scotland. I think it's notable. Not enough to warrant its own article, though. Incidentally, I have seen Scots-Yiddish mentioned in Scots: The Mither Tongue by Billy Kay if anyone is looking for more sources.Crazygraham (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with History of the Jews in Scotland- Ravichandar My coffee shop 04:01, 29 June 2008 (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.