Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Székely 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. Some arguments were made for merging with Hungarian dialects, but the article has no sourced content to merge. I'll make a redirect after deletion, though. Angr (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Székely language[edit]

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

Original research, hoax, according to ISO 639-2 there is no separate language for Székely people, a well-known Hungarian subgroup. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. It's a disputed article and now there is a debate now on the talk page. Hortobagy (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as a very likely hoax; unless someone can prove based on reliable scholarly sources that there is a considerable academic consensus regarding a separate "Székely language", which is not simply a minor dialect of the Hungarian. Several editors have asked for such academic proofs on the Talk page of the article, but non were provided. Only evading answers were given (like the one above: "This is not true"). This seriously questions the reason for existence of the article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Keep This is the kind of article that can be renamed Controversy of Székely language but in any case, I would strongly keep the current article as it is. Hortobagy (talk) 06:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in this article is based on reliable sources, therefore there is no controversy around the "Székely language". Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to be more of a misunderstanding than a hoax. This book (Rona-Tas, Andras (1999). Hungarians and Europe in the early Middle Ages: an introduction to early Hungarian history. Central European University Press.) discusses "Szekely runiform writing" and the origins of the written language. Here are some selections from the book and "Reply #4" on this blog (an unreliable source) quote some of the book more extensively (I bring up the blog so you can read more of the book). It seems that the relevant question to answer is the definition of language that English Wikipedia is using. - tucoxn\^talk 00:37, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- English Wikipedia doesn't use "language" to refer to writing systems. Also see my response here. — Lfdder (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources has been provided on the existence of a separate Székely language. Róna-Tas in his above cited book does not refer to it, he writes of the Székely script (which is an existing script, but not a language) Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strongly Keep.~~ We need articles. We need to create new articles. This is the case like Flemish language and other languages. It's a political, very sensible issue. Hortobagy (talk) 06:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has potential, if rewritten, to be an article, but then it should be moved to Székely dialect. bogdan (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I cannot understand your above logic: why do you think that an article which cannot be substantiated by reliable sources "has potential"? Borsoka (talk) 09:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Székely being a language may not be substantiated by reliable sources, but there's plenty of sources calling it a "dialect". bogdan (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no evidence for Szekely language. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Szekely or Old Hungarian script has its own article. However there is no evidence for spoken Szekely language. "....Szeklers speak dialects of Hungarian that are also found in the Southern and Western part of the old Hungarian Kingdom; there is no evidence to prove they speak a different language"[1] I cite academic Laszlo Makkai[2]: "....And the only information we have concerning the Székely people indicates that they spoke the same Finno-Ugric tongue. The names of their clans, clan branches, and social units are of Hungarian origin, as are all the toponyms they applied in their area of settlement....Thus even if the Székelys once spoke a Turkic tongue, they must have given it up in favour of Hungarian at an early date. The Székely dialect contains no more Bulgaro-Turkish loan-words from before the Hungarian conquest than does standard Hungarian....." We can only speak about Hungarian Szekely dialect. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like other people have said above. — Lfdder (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence proven that this language exists; I'm willing to WP:AGF and assume it was just a big misunderstanding by the article creator. At least, for now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest that the results of this review should automatically be apply to the recently created Szekely language article (for the time being a redirection page) as well. Borsoka (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to "Székely dialect". Proper name, as per Gbook hits.--Zoupan 14:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Székely dialect, per Zoupan and Fakirbakir, or merge with Hungarian dialects, per Bogdangiusca. I've read enough about the Székelys to understand the situation. We have lots of articles about dialects, and this one seems to be distinct enough for a stand-alone article, or as a big chuck of the dialects article. Bearian (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the content of the article itself is very poor and false, not to mention its style, grammar and its unsourced and OR parts. Thus not only the title of the article is wrong. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the subject of this discussion is this specific article with a title which cannot be substantiated by reliable sources and with text made up by OR; therefore, this specific article cannot be moved if we take into account WP:NOR. Yes a new article could be created on the Székely dialects based on reliable sources, but it is an other story. Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2013 (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.