Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galay

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. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:39, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Galay[edit]

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

Non-notable conlang, WP:COI. Sourcing is only to "The Galay Institute" (a Facebook page) and a self-published book by Alrah Fraser (this article was created and substantially edited by User:Alrah Fraser). No other significant independant coverage to be found. Does not pass WP:GNG. — Gwalla | Talk 18:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author has now added some sources, but one of these is rather unspecific - the name of and a link to a 269-page doctoral thesis by a third party. Good scholarly practice would obviously be to reference specific pages in the thesis. The other source (Blasi and Bjorklund) does not say what User:Alrah Fraser wants the reader to think it says. Miekkoja m (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is also to the book: 'The Complete Golden Dawn Initiate' by Steven Ashe - just referenced which I believe makes it notable now. Alrah Fraser (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Steven Ashe is, however, the creator of the language - as per the Galay group on facebook ("Galay is a visual language that is logographic, phonographic, and a posteriori. It was invented by BethSheba Ashe and created/developed by BethSheba and Steven Ashe." ) which makes NPOV seem somewhat unlikely there. A search inside "The Complete Golden Dawn Initiate" on Amazon.com gives no hits for "Galay", whereas a sample of other words shows that the search function has access to the text of the book (it doesn't for all books), so, I guess we need to say ^{[need quotation to verify]} regarding your claim that it's mentioned there. As a personal hint, Fraser, this is not the first time a fanboy has been so impressed with someone's work that he's tried pushing it on wikipedia with all kinds of miraculous claims. Just drop it. This is not the right forum to advertise a product/stroke your idol's ego. Further, your misuse of sources speaks volumes. Miekkoja m (talk) 13:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, why did you move the ^{[need quotation to verify]} from the claim about IQ to the claim about increased logographic ability? Ultimately though, I am not sure this writing system really qualifies as a logography by the definitions used by linguists anyway, so anything a linguist says about logographies can only be applied with many caveats to Galay. Miekkoja m (talk) 13:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. I did tag it for more input, but on reflection, I think it can go. LS1979 (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fairly obviousWP:COI, Facebook not being a reliable source, a self published book could quite possibly be original research. Do we have a three strikes and your out rule? Amortias (T)(C) 21:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as per nom. Appears to be a neologism that has not received any widespread acceptance. The final para about boosting intelligence, useful for children with special needs etc. sounds horribly like psycho-quackery. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with everything so far said. Self promotion by New Age panhandlers and not a conlang as properly defined either. Paul S (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go - how would you classify the Galay language then - if it's not a conlang??? When I added the Galay carriage to the temple calendar I made it a functional new conlang. And replying to the author who says it's not logographic? It spells out words with a picture of a wheel! There are some very misguided perspectives being passed around on the language you're debating here.

What are the Galay words for "cat", "mother" and "house"? What is its syntax for expressing a present statement of fact, and does that syntax differ from how questions are phrased? How many cases do Galay nouns use? How are verbs conjugated? If go into a store, how would I ask the shopkeeper about the price of a book? If Galay is a conlang, then you should be able to answer all of these questions. TechBear | Talk | Contributions 18:57, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IQ data is shown by a paper which basically states that when Chinese child migrants in America learn the alphabet instead of staying in China and learning mandarin - then their IQ suffers between 5% to 7% and that conversely when children are taken to China and learn a logographic language they do 7% better than their peers in America. The research that supports the claims on special needs is evidenced by the high degree of visual and pattern thinkers in the autistic community. Logographic languages match the predominantly visual styles of processing that *some* special needs children possess. I doubt it would help people with dyslexia and I would never claim that. I have a set of ethics and I hope that people will rewrite the page with their own very objective views on the language. I promise I shall not edit it further than adding the appropriate references requested. Alrah Fraser (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"logographic" and "phonographic" are descriptions of a writing system, not a language. It is not possible to have a "logographic language" or "phonographic language", only a language which is written logographically/phonographically.Paul S (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Clearly a mixture of an insignificant hobbyist's invention in artificial writing systems combined with a good dose of pseudoscience. Miekkoja m (talk) 18:13, 29 October 2014 (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.