Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puka-Pukan 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. Any user wishing to have this userfied can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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, because consensus is quite clear on the content being unverifiable. The author did write that some source had been used, but without it being presented it cannot pass WP:V at this point. The sole keep vote does nothing to address this point. I am leaving the question of whether to redirect to Pukapukan language open (as Uncle G proposed). There are a few reasons I'm not doing so right now:

There is no discernable consensus here that a redirect should be made (although that option has not been fully discussed).
If the source Tshilo12 used does surface, it may be better to leave this title open.
Pukapuka and Puka-Puka have nothing to do with each other, and I am concerned that a redirect, especially one immediately following a deletion may cause some confusion.

Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puka-Pukan language

Procedural nom for IP editor. Reason for nom (per talk page): "The article should be deleted, as that language does not exist at all. The island was settled after WWII, so no specific language does exist there". I have no opinion on the deletion (or not) of the article. ascidian | talk-to-me 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion discussion at the German Wikipedia for this very article makes for interesting reading. The German Wikipedians first pointed to us, then noticed that we cited no sources, then checked out sources for themselves (13th and 14th editions of Ethnologue), and discovered that there weren't any. I strongly suspect that 91.141.44.13 (talk · contribs) is one of those people, helpfully informing us that we have an unverifiable article.
And it appears that we have. Here's the language family as laid out on page 133 of ISBN 9780521471664:
- Polynesian
  - Nuclear Polynesian
    - Eastern Polynesian
      - Central Eastern
        Tahitic
        Tahitian language
        
        Tuamotuan language
        
        Rarotongan language
        
        Maori language
        
        Marquesic
        Marquesan language
        
        Mangarevan language
        
        Hawaiian language
      - Rapa Nui language
    - Samoic Outlier languages
      - Samoan language
      - Pukapukan language
      - Other Outlier languages
  - Tongan language
  - Niuean language
You'll find a similar family tree (whose differences are not relevant to the issue of this purported language) on page 118 of ISBN 9780824810191. There's another similar one (again whose differences are irrelevant here) on page 261 of ISBN 9780520080027.
A supporting source is Thomas Albert Sebeok (1976). Current Trends in Linguistics. Mouton. p. 485., which in prose form says the same thing: Nuclear Polynesian subdivides into Eastern Polynesian and a Samoic Outlier group. All of the languages east of Samoa fall into the former group except Pukapukan, which is in the latter group.
The Pukapukan language exists. Ironically, its (currently incomplete) infobox should contain, in the language family section, what this article's infobox does contain. But there's no evidence in sources that this language, as described, is recognized. The Pukapukan mentioned in the sources is the one of the Northern Cook Islands.
This is unverifiable. And the disambiguation at Pukapukan needs fixing. There's no ambiguity, and there aren't multiple subjects. This is in fact an alternative name for Pukapukan language, albeit one that is mainly used informally, with linguists tending to prefer "Pukapukan" from what I can find. Redirect. Uncle G (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete: The people of Puka Puka in the Tuamotu archipelago do indeed seem to speak a South Marquesan dialect, maybe not really a distinct language. (Nothing to do with the Samoic Pukapukan language spoken in an island in the Cooks) But there are no references, not surprising for such a small place, and no information given on the language/dialect. This article adds nothing that is not included in the article on Puka-Puka. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm unsure right now what to do.~~ The article was originally created by TShilo12, who otherwise seems like a mostly reasonable and reliable editor (I've left a note on his talk page requesting sources and pointing him to this discussion). The other Polynesian language I can see that he's created is Rapan language--in this context, note that the Eastern Polynesian languages page (evidently equivalent to Marquesic languages) says: "The erstwhile Marquesic Puka-Pukan language, spoken in Puka-Puka and the Disappointment Islands in northeastern Tuamotu; the Tahitic Rakahanga-Manihiki language, spoken on Rakahanga and Manihiki in the northern Cook Islands; and the ungrouped Rapan language, spoken on Rapa Iti in the Austral Islands, were not included in the database [referring to this database; see here for their classification of East Polynesian]." Though Ethnologue isn't always a reliable source, it does include within East Polynesian the Rapan language (as "Rapa", code RAY) and Rakahanga-Manihiki (code RKH - note that TShilo12 did not create the Wikipedia article for this language, and that contrary to Wikipedia's claim, it is in fact represented in the above-mentioned database). But not a "Puka-Pukan" within Eastern Polynesian. Until some of this is clarified, I'm going to withhold judgment or a !vote --Miskwito (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete, per Angr below, since TShilo doesn't recall his source(s). If one is found in the future, the article can always be recreated, I suppose --Miskwito (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no reason to doubt the accuracy of the article. Given the location of the island, it seems entirely plausible that the people speak a Marquesan dialect and the few sources I found on Google seem to confirm that. But without any references and without any further information, I can't see much value in the article. The one on the island seems enough. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of reason to doubt the accuracy of that article: There's not a single source that supports it and plenty that say no such thing. Why are you putting what is written in another unsourced Wikipedia article ahead of what you can find in published literature on this subject? If you want some published literature, look at some of the books above. Or look at appendix 2 of The lexicon of Proto-Oceanic (ISBN 9781921313189), pages 351–352: It's the same family tree as above. (It cites Marck's 2000 article as its source.) Just as with all the others, Eastern Polynesian is not the same as the Marquesic group, despite what an unsourced Wikipedia article says. Just as with all the others, Pukapukan is an outlier under Nuclear Polynesian. Just as with all the others, there's no mention of a Puka-Pukan language in the Marquesic group, despite what an unsourced Wikipedia article says. Why on Earth are you placing a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor ahead of published, accredited, identifiable, experts in the subject such as Jeff Marck of ANU and Russell Gray of the University of Auckland? Why are you basing your decisions on what "seems plausible" rather than on what is actually in the published literature? Uncle G (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not trying to save the article - don't see any useful information in it. But there are two Puka Puka islands, one at 10°53′S 165°40′W / 10.883°S 165.667°W / -10.883; -165.667 in the Cooks and the other 1,000 miles away between the Marquesas and the main Tuamotu archipelago at 14°49′S 138°49′W / 14.817°S 138.817°W / -14.817; -138.817 - check the map. The islanders in the Cooks speak the documented Samoic Pukapukan language. It would be extraordinary to find that the islanders to the south of the Marquesas spoke the same language, forcing a fundamental reconsideration of all theories of Polynesian migration. I am inclined to believe that they speak a Marquesan dialect. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been asked whether I have a source for the article, and the answer is (1) I didn't make it up, but (2) I don't remember where I read about it. Maybe in the BPB Museum bulletin "Marquesan Legends", maybe in Fatu Hiva, perhaps any number of other sources, I simply don't remember. As I recall, from what I read the language was no longer spoken, in Puka Puka (nothing to do with Pukapuka in the Cooks), or elsewhere. When I wrote the stub, I was doing a brain dump of a lot of stuff having to do with the Marquesas, and my interest in the subject began to wane 15 years ago already... Tomer ^talk 02:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable unless TShilo12/Tomer remembers where he heard about it. ;-) —An gr 05:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No objection, except that I didn't hear about it, I read about it. There is, I think, especially in this context, a significant difference... :-p I do reserve the right to recreate the article, should it be deleted, without prejudice, if I manage to dig up the source where I originally read about it, before my deteriorating brain forgets I have a wp acct. :-D Tomer ^talk 07:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources and therefore unverifiable, and a good chance it's a hoax.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a perfect example of both deletionist paranoia & the need for Pure Wiki Deletion. Wikipedia is not World Book. Ventifax (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at your user page I see you've written a slightly more substantial response to this AFD: "The deletionists (who sometimes seem to be the dominant culture lately) are actually contending that a) the language in existence can't exist because, "it's really just a dialect;" (Oh? I guess we should delete Cantonese language & Norwegian language then) & b) that the article could be a fraud, so we should delete it." It looks to me like you might misunderstand the problem (at least as far as the dialect thing is concerned). First of all, the objection is not at all that this is "just a dialect". It's that the only language called "Puka-Pukan" that anyone here can find in reliable published sources is not the same language described on this Wikipedia article. If it exists, whether it's a separate Marquesan language or a dialect of some other Marquesan language is beside the point. Secondly, while I don't agree with some of the people who think Tomer made the whole article up or something (I'd rather assume good faith), there's simply no sources for any of the information, and Tomer himself doesn't know where to find it. The article is therefore unverifiable, at least for the present time, and so (our argument goes) is inappropriate for this encyclopedia. No one would stop the recreation of the article if if sources were found. --Miskwito (talk) 05:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Puka-Puka article mentions that the language spoken on the island is Marquesan. This article says no more. I absolutely assume good faith: it seems highly likely that this article is entirely accurate. But I see no reason for a short stub with no sources that just repeats one sentence in the Puka-Puka article. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC) (not remotely a deletionist)[reply]

Delete You can just copy it to your user space and work on it there. Until we have viable sources, this really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. There is no prejudice associated with the deletion of the article. If you need assistance in saving this article, I highly recommend speaking with User:MichaelQSchmidt. He can help you with the intricacies of Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.