Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tumi (ancient 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 was delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Thanks for catching this dubious article. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Tumi (ancient language)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

New article created by an editor with a track record of inventing dubious Indonesian “languages” that get deleted at AfD because they don’t actually exist. Of the two sources here I don’t have access to the first but the second appears to be a blog that doesn’t mention this language at all. Perhaps someone with better knowledge or access to sources can advise? Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Indonesia. Mccapra (talk) 02:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, cannot find any RS and, as nom indicates, one of the sources in the article doesn't even mention the subject. &mdash;siro&chi;o 03:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete, as noted by nom, the accessible source appears to be a blog-like website and translating the contents does not then present reference to the alleged language in question. I am unaware of the article creator and will trust the nominator's concerns around them having a record of creating similarly dubious articles (although some supporting alternate AfD links would be useful here too). Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:17, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - The first source is not just inaccessible, it appears spurious. It is given as "Sudjarwo, Prof. Dr. KPL Menjawab Sejarah (in Indonesian) (1 ed.). Lampung: Masa Kini Mandiri. p. 13. ISBN 9786025270529." The ISBN number does not exist in any of the databases I checked. A search for the title and author only comes up with a handful of pages and they are all Wikipedia or Wikipedia clones. I note that the page creator also recently created a page, Tumi (tribe) with the same source. Both pages are based on translations from Indonesian wikipedia, . This page does not credit Indonesian Wikipedia for the copy within, so there is a (repairable) copyvio. On the basis of the sources present, this is a clear delete, but will wait to see if any better sourcing is available. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Concern: this article was taken to AfD 8 hours after it was started. There was no discussion about concerns: Talk:Tumi (ancient language). There was no discussion of concerns at User talk:Blackman Jr.. There were no templates added identifying problems.
 * Whatever the issues with this article, this process seems all wrong.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:55, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Procedural Close - This looks like another rush to judgement without discussion on the Talk. AfD should not be the first recourse if you think an article is weak or sources are bogus (both of which might well be true in this case). If you post your objections on the Talk (and give the editors at least a little time to respond), either your AfD case will be unassailable, or we get an article that adds value to the encyclopaedia. I propose we drop this nom, put the objections on Talk, give it a week, then AfD if the article doesn't improve. (see below for corrected !vote) Cheers, Last1in (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think procedural close or withdraw is available here as there are already !votes. Also, whilst I understand the concern at the speed of the nomination, I was expecting the nom. might defend that by pointing out that this editor has some form regarding spurious pages. For instance:, and related to this AfD: . Based on that form, there is a question as to whether this page might, in gact, have been a candidate for speedy deletion under G3. I have searched quite extensively now, and although we have editors more expert in this than me, who may hopefully comment here, I cannot find any evidence for such an ancient language. There is limited information for a modent Tumi language in Nigeria. See Tumi language (it won't take long to read!) But there are no books in English that discuss an ancient Tumi language per this article, nor journal articles nor anything else I can find. AfD takes at least a week, and if the page creator can present sources, these can be discussed and the process may take longer. But as soon as a page is in main space it qualifies for deletion, and if a page in mainspace appears to be a hoax or complete non subject, then a deletion discussion is wholly appropriate. We have draft space where articles can be developed to a publishable level, but once an editor makes a decision to publish a page, a deletion discussion is wholly within the rules. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:59, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Good info and fair reasoning. I withdraw my !vote and change to Delete. I still don't like the persistent trend to RUSHDELETE so many articles, but I agree that this is not a viable article based on 's data. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Yet another one of Eiskrahablo's dubious creations. And I'm not sure what "Unattested (possibly including Proto-Austronesian language)" is supposed to mean. The creator has been nothing but obtuse dealing with any concerns raised (persistent edit warring). Semmiii (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm confused; the page history says the author is.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 17:37, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ... who is the same person, with a history of terrible edits. But I'm not sure if anything should be deleted on account of them being a sock. The real issue is that they haven't improved and there's little (if any) salvageable content in these creations. It all ranges from misrepresenting sources (Eastern Indonesia Malay) to dubious hoax-like stuff ("standard Sula", this "ancient language"). To their credit, though, the first source here *could* be real as the ISBN appears to be (technically) valid. Except I have no reason to trust them at this point (and I'd just nuke all of it). Semmiii (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If you suspect someone is a sockpuppet, you will need to take it to Sockpuppet investigations and open a case there. I strongly suggest you strike the accusation here until that is completed. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't come to hasty conclusions. randomly translates articles from Indonesian WP with zero scrutiny and a very apparent lack of competence or judgement about what they are doing, but also with zero POV. It's just random fluff. The LTA that you refer to has a very distinct and twisted POV. I see nothing of this in the creator of the present article. –Austronesier (talk) 18:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Another day, another spurious language article by Blackman Jr. as a result of translation from Indonesian WP with zero scrutiny. There is no coverage of a "Tumi" language at all. In whatever kind of reliable or not so reliable sources. There are some dubious sources that talk about a semi-legendary people called "Tumi" that are claimed to have played a role in the early history of Lampung. But there is no mention whatsoever about their language in any source. People speak, right, but it is a stretch to "invent" a distinct language at any mention of a certain group of people, as was obviously done by the original creator of the Indonesian article. And the infobox is telling: it says "unattested", which is a very honest thing to say, but at the same time is a nice way to say "this is all made up".
 * Btw, I am absolutely baffled why it this AfD is called "rushed". If something is rubbish, then no time should be wasted to remove it from WP before it finds its way into mirrors and search engine. That's our responsibility. If there is anything to blame, it's taking it to AfD instead of simply PROD-ing it (OTOH, keeping a hoax for 7 days is quite irresponsible). –Austronesier (talk) 18:28, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Add. For the record, the Indonesian version of this article was created by the same editor. I have mixed it up with Tumi (tribe). So unlike I have claimed earlier, this is not an just indiscriminate translation of an article with a spurious topic, but their very own concoction! –Austronesier (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - I have made the case above. Just adding the !vote. I note that a translation of the web page source on the page talks about the Tumi people, not the language and the page says the language is "unattested". I think the page creator has simply assumed that the language of the Tumi people must once have been a Tumi language, but that is WP:OR. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete per all of the discussion to date. Bottom line: article is unreliable (in addition to notability, etc.)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 18:45, 8 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete for the above mentioned reasons. CMD (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2023 (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.