Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vasconic languages


 * 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. John254 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Vasconic languages

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

The article is a rather obvious violation of WP:fringe. While some language gropus are universally accepted (Romance languages and others are controversial (Altaic languages), the so called Vasconic languages are not even controversial - they are universally rejected as the brain child of Theo Vennemann. Unlike the case of Altaic languages in which a minority of linguists defend their existence, no linguist not immediately connected to Vennemann has defended the idea of Vasconic languages, quite the opposite. The only publications on the issue are by Vennemann and published in non-notable journals. If anyone thinks that the idea merits mentioning, it could be included as a paragrapgh under the article on Vennemann, but as the idea is merely unproven and universally rejected invention of Vennemann, I fail to see how it merits an article on its own. Wikipedia should include information on both accepted and controversial theories, but not necessarily on any far-fetched phantasy, as per WP:fringe JdeJ (talk) 19:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because the same reason applies; the Atlantic languages are also a personal invention by Theo Vennemann without any acceptance whatsoever. In this case, the article not only violates WP:fringe but also creates unnecessary confusion as there is a hypothetical language group by the same name, Atlantic languages. Although not universally accepted by linguists, there are at least scientific arguments for and against the latter group, unlike Vennemann's ignored personal ideas.
 * JdeJ (talk) 19:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree but I think this is the wrong way to go about it. The right one is to merge the article with Theo Vennemans, and add a redirect. There is already a proposed merger so this should be discussed as a merger and not an AfD. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, maybe merge and redirect. It appears that the idea is universally rejected, but that does not mean it is not notable. In fact, there is no lack of sources about this concept, however they all point to the author Theo Vennemann. From WP:FRINGE: Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That is of course a very valid point. However, the general practice on Wikipedia, from what I've seen, seems to be to mention similar fringe theories in the articles dealing with their creators. To take but one similar example, the ideas of Erich von Däniken are not given separate articles presenting them as if they were facts, even if they are much more notable and the name of von Däniken is much more known. As Vennemann is a small von Däniken of linguistics, I would recommend a similar procedure - especially given the current disambiguation between the actual hypothetic language family of Atlantic languages and Vennemann's invention by the same name. JdeJ (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Article seems properly sourced and it is not portraying a fringe theory as fact - it's specifically called hypothetical at the beginning of the article and the the criticisms of the theory by the majority of linguists are clearly stated. Edward321 (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as notable, sourced, and well-written. Does not meet any deletion criteria. Erik the Red  2 ( AVE · CAESAR ) 22:06, 4 August 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.