Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moabite 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 keep. Mz7 (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moabite language[edit]

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

This article was merged into Moab#Language back in 2012. This editor pulled the text out of Moab and back into its own article, to considerable backlash in the Moab article. The text has been re-established in Moab, so this is a duplicate. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:15, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The edit which merged into Moab was this, with edit comment: Merged into Moab article. Creating redirect. This article is always going to remain a stub since there is not much known about the language as we only have the mesha stele to draw conclusions from).

At Moab, there was a mini edit-war over this movement back out of Moab into a separate article, resulting in the text not getting deleted from the Moab article. Further detail, the responsible editor, Likethewaves, seems to be a sock of BedrockPerson (reported, not yet confirmed). All in all, the re-creation of this article seems unduly skanky. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:20, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not at all in agreement with the assertion that a limited number of source documents in the language means that there is an equally limited amount of third-party discussion of the language. There are quite a few journal articles and academic book chapters that provide at least some insight into the language, its orthography, and its mutual comprehensibility with regard to ancient Hebrew; certainly, more can be said--and cited!--than the article currently bears out. To say nothing of historical context of the discovery and identification of the various source documents (in particular, there's probably room for discussion of the disputed provenance and Moabite identification of the so-called marzeah papyrus). Will this always be a relatively short article? Almost certainly, but that's not cause for deletion (or, necessarily, for merger). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article, instead, should be rescued, im working on it! Newroderick895 20:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. samee converse 21:14, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most languages (with some attestation) are independently notable from the ethnic/political group using them. This one is no exception and is clearly independently notable from Moab in a cursory BEFORE.Icewhiz (talk) 13:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as all languages deserve a page. We have no policy that forbids stubs. If there is an editor who merged the info from thise article back into the Moab article (a claim I could not verify), then they should be trouted, since that is an obvious attempt to circumvent WP:AFD procedure. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep one of the many Category:Languages attested from the 1st millennium BC of interest to scholars, pleanty of sorucing available in arane academic journals.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:06, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but expand sourcing and improve DocumentError (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2018 (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.