Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak (3rd nomination)

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 and redirect to Pan-Germanic language. Daniel (talk) 05:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Folkspraak[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm taking another shot, seeing that there were several no-consensus outcomes for lack of input, at putting this up for a deletion discussion. There is still, six years after the last discussion, no coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails WP:GNG. On top of that it isn't even convincing, contradictory as it is: It's defined as a constructed language making it suitable to be "a sort of" lingua franca—then, later, we're shown the Lord's Prayer in five "dialects" of it—and they're patently different languages, no more alike than the diverse languages they're supposed to be a lingua franca for. So this article isn't even telling us reliably what Folkspraak is. I don't doubt that there's an ideal lying under it that some people are hoping to achieve, but to a degree the article is about something that doesn't exist, at least yet. Largoplazo (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: WP:V is a problem with the article as well. Largoplazo (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not appear to satisfy GNG. – DarkGlow (✉) 00:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find no reliable independent sourcing for this article to show the subject's notability. It's apparently an idea that's under development and is being pulled in multiple directions by different people/groups. More than thirteen years since the first version of this article was first created, and it still does not appear to have significant traction. Meters (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pan-Germanic language, even on the off chance that secondary sources covering this strange attempt at a language are found, it would be far better covered there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I endorse this. Largoplazo (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Folkspraak is notable for being (probably) the first collaborative conlang project online. Besides, it won't be a problem to find some coverage in reliable sources. The problem is that over the years, Folkspraak has several times been rebooted from start, and at some point it became a common moniker for several different language projects, some of which are quite different from others. That doesn't necessarily mean they are different languages, since all versions are mutually intelligible, but a common standard was never reached. As a result, it is impossible to describe Folkspraak as a single language with a single standard, without taking into account its history. And obviously, it is nonsense to present the phonology of one version and take text samples from different versions. I agree that a redirect to Pan-Germanic language would be the best solution, but please leave the page history intact. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Probably"—you don't even say firmly that it has the one characteristic based on which you're asserting notability. Besides that, I need to remark that "notable" in Wikipedia-speak doesn't have its usual English meaning: it doesn't mean "worthy of note" (that is, worthy of note because it's the first ...) but "has been noted in one or more of the various ways described at WP:N". As much as any one person may feel the effort is worthy of note, the relevant question is whether it has received such note. I see no evidence that it has.

In addition, if these are all different projects (and the article stresses that they are different), with independent groups of people having different motivations and following different strategies working on them, then they're different subjects. The fact that they keep appropriating the same name for their diversity of projects doesn't make them a single article topic. And—just look at them in the comparison in the article. No two of them are the same language. Largoplazo (talk) 01:00, 19 January 2021 (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.