Jump to content

User:IJzeren Jan/Siberian undelete discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Siberian language

[edit]

This page has been unilaterally deleted by moderator Alex Bakharev, based on a VfD of more than a year ago. I should point out, however, that a lot of things can change in a year's time, and I have such a feeling that this is the case here. Besides, the contents of the recreated article was completely different from the previous (deleted) version. I should also point out that there is a pending request for a wikipedia in the language, and therefore I think this article is not only of value, but even necessary. I propose undeleting it immediately and issuing a normal AfD procedure instead. — --IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 09:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Original deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siberian language. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain - The current contents are indeed vastly different than the old, and it does seem perhaps a bit odd to delete as a recreate of a validly deleted article. That being said, the new content was incredibly poor, with bad spelling, links to livejournal, and many of the other markers of a poor article. I also wonder whether it's appropriate to call this a language -- by the article it sounds more like a description of a dialect (perhaps like calling a Boston accent a Boston language?). In sum, I don't know if there's any content worth keeping, and the title's probably misleading too. I'm open to lines of reasoning by other people on this one. --Improv 10:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • The matter is just to construct a full language on the base of dialect --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you saying this is a project to build a language out of a dialect? Are you involved? How big is this? --Improv 15:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - Utter nonsense. There is absolutely no such thing as the "Siberian language". --Timothy Usher 10:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • just see it at http://volgota.com - newspaper, books, site interface. Wiki has many articles about languages not so developed as Siberian --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - The language was developed from the time of last deletion, now it is very complicated, many texts translated and written, many people learning it, a big site launched, so it is not "non-notable" conlang now --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - I absolutely agree with Yaroslav Zolotaryov. By the way, the site about siberian language and test wiki on siberian --Steel archer 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Both of these accounts were created to vote on Deletion Review. Not cool. --Improv 16:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You can see my history in UK and Yaroslav's (Anarch) history in RU Wikipedias. Why new users can't vote? --Steel archer 21:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. --Pjacobi 12:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 16:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, looking at the article, the VfD was as valid today as it was last year. --fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 12:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Please, elucidate your thought. --Steel archer 16:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. This looks like an attempt to promote a non-notable constructed language. There are no independent, neutral sources to confirm the existance of a specific "Siberian language" as described in the article. There are several languages spoken in Siberia, but this article does not adress any of them. --Ezeu 12:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just search in Google "siberian language/сибирский язык/сибирской говор/сибірська мова". And look at test siberian wiki. There are 5-10 millions people in Siberia (and not only there) what spoke on this language, and I'm. too. Do you think I'm speaking on language what is not exist? :) --Steel archer 15:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • The test wiki is not an independent reliable source. Much of it is written by some people participating here. --Ezeu 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Siberian language was prohibited in Russian Empire and Soviet Union. And now, most of people which are against this language are russian imperialists indeed. And this is a reason why it is rather difficult to find sources about siberian. There are no full literature siberian language: Yaroslav Zolotaryov just constructs it basing on many siberian dialects. So, you can hardly ever find people speak on ""literature"" siberian - only on its dialects. --Steel archer 16:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist to AfD: from my reading in linguistics I would expect it to be deleted there, but it would give non-admins the chance to debate the deletion on the merits of its content, especially as it doesn't seem to meet the recreated content CSD. --Aquilina 12:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - This page needs to be undeleted. The language has already been constructed. It is based on a local dialect, but its' origins are really beside the point. There is, for example, a wiki page for Talossan language, that has been constructed by a single person for a country completely invented by him, and whose "words and grammar are just made up at random". Surely Siberian has far better basis. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.20.29.135 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The speedy-deleted version was significantly different from the deleted version. On that basis, I'm afraid that we must overturn the speedy-deletion and relist to AFD. However, I am deeply skeptical that the article will prevail during the deletion discussion. The prior deletion discussion was unanimous and included the opinion of the alleged author of this recently constructed language. None of the concerns raised in the prior deletion debate have been answered either in the redeleted article nor in this discussion so far. The wiki does not meet the required standards for a reliable source and the google test (168 unique hits) returns very little that appears relevant. Every hit I scanned used the phrase "Siberian language" in the casual sense of "a language used by a community indiginous to the geographic area of Siberia", not in the sense of a unified language. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • You can try the google test in russian language, and will see many sources about the siberian not from me or Volgota group. Being an artefact of local culture, it is simply not mentioned in the english-speaking audience --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak overturn and relist per Aquilina. The version debated on VfD was a short stub, while the version deleted as G4 was fairly detailed. That said, I'd say the new version fails WP:OR pretty hard, and should be deleted or heavily shortened on that basis unless independent sources are provided. It's almost a WP:SNOW case, but I'm personally willing to give it its five days on AfD, just in case I'm proven wrong. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Relist as different, where I will vote delete as this asserts the factual existence of this language, but no reliable sources have been produced to suggest that it is anything other than a conlang. Just zis Guy you know? 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep deleted per Mikka, who speaks several comparable languages and is (unlike the average AfD voter) able to understand the supposed sources. Just zis Guy you know? 22:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep deleted. original research. No independent information from anywhere but fans' writings provided. (forums are not allowed as sources for wikipedia) `'mikka (t) 19:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: this is nót about the question whether it is a good article or not. If there's something wrong with an article, it should be improved. Perhaps the English wasn't perfect indeed, and perhaps there was a link to a blog or something, but I think this article was still a lot better than the average stub. That kind of things can be fixed easily without deleting an article. Neither is this about the question whether constructed languages in general should be in Wikipedia or not. Nor about the question whether this article was original research. This is about the way it was deleted! Every time when a conlang is listed for deletion, they say: at present this language is not notable enough, but when that has changed, by all means create an article about it. Now, I think there are reasons to assume that that is indeed the case here. I can see many reasons why the language is notable enough. But even if I'm wrong, the merits of Siberian should be discussed properly in an AfD discussion, but definitely not here. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 21:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Surely, the article can be changed, my english is poor, and my view to the language is definitely non-neutral, so if would be better article, it would be fine --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per WP:NOR. It's just another LiveJournal flashmob. MaxSem 21:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • That's exactly the point. That might have been true one year ago, it definitely isn't true anymore. But again, let's not start discussing the article itself, but the way it has been deleted. At present, no one can even read what the discussion is about. I think the least it deserves is a proper AfD discussion, pending which every participant in the discussion can read the article. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: I've temporarily undeleted the history for the duration of this DRV discussion. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme speedy keep deleted. OR, an attempt at advertising an nn conlang, nothing has changed to make this more notable than the first decision to delete. We're not here to reargue the AfD, but to discuss whether or not the original deletion was appropriate. It was, it still is. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Pardon me, but this is not about the question whether the original deletion was appropriate. It no doubt was. If little Pete writes an article about his hobbies, then it will be deleted. But if he's suddenly elected president of the USA, does that mean there can't be an article about him because there has already been a valid VfD? What bothers me is this: once an article has survived an AfD, it can be relisted for deletion again, and again, and again, until the deletionists get their way. But once an article has been deleted, there is no way go get it back, even if things may have changed. I think that's bad, very bad! —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: out of curiosity I looked into the website of the "language". After reading the "translation" of Pushkin quoted below I am more inclined to believe this is a practical joke rather than a serious attempt to revive a supposedly extinct "Siberian" dialect of Russian. Native Russian speakers, prepare for a good laugh:
    Мой дедя шыбко чесных веров,
    Кода-от шыбко захворал,
    Людям дык всю дыхню зашкерил,
    В горбыль всех просто зайобал.
    And there is more of this.`'mikka (t) 23:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    • But such were dialetical expressions of the same meaning which is in Pushkin verse, and you laugh simply for diregarding the folk speech --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Hmm, Eugene Onegin in hillbilly... ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 08:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Tread carefully the fine line between humour and mockery. --Ezeu 08:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
          • No mockery of Pushkin there, Pushkin himself liked dialects, used them, if he were alive now, he perhaps voted for siberian here. His poem "Ruslan and Ludmila" was also regarded as mockery just for using dialectical words and common people's relation to the topic of this poem. So in fact, our group continues Pushkin's work, but conservators are against him --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:45, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Irrelevant. Just like "bad spelling", "links to livejournal", "too small and too new a project", "no such thing as the Siberian language", "no reliable sources", "promotion" and "original research" are irrelevant here. Again, this discussion should not be about the language itself. We have AfD discussions for that. This discussion is about the question whether an article that has been deleted in the remote past can or cannot be recreated. The admin in question has unilaterally deleted the article and locked the page, and thát is the decision I'm questioning here. People's personal tastes have no place in such discussion. For the record, I don't have a clear opinion on the matter. I'm in no way connected to the creators of the language. What I can tell as one of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed resident conlang experts, is that a lot seems to have changed since the last AfD. If the language has indeed a group of 80 active users, and if there is some press coverage, then it just might qualify for an article. Besides, we have this discussion about a wikipedia in the language going on. Personally, I don't believe this is a hoax. But like I said, that kind of arguments belong in an AfD discussion, not here. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 08:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
      • This was not an argument. This was a comment that started this thread. This zolotarev guy extended his hobby joke as to suggest a siberian language wikipedia. How do you imagine wikipedia in hillbilly. This alone says something about this project. As for 80 active users: how do you know that? Somehow I don't believe Zolotaryov. The basic argument against undeletion is wikipedia:Verifiability. The "some" press coverage seen is not a reliable source, it is still word of language creator's mouth, not of an independent linguistics expert. In other words, the major objection voiced during deletion is not addressed by the new version. Article size doesn't matter. `'mikka (t) 17:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
        • A hundred years ago Ukrainian was also considered "hillbilly Russian" by the czarist government. In other words, thát argument doesn't really hold stake. As for your point regarding verifiability: I tend to agree with you here. I'd love to see some samples of real press coverage, because thát is IMO what makes the difference. I don't know whether to believe Mr. Zolotaryov or not. The whole discussion evokes quite strong reminiscences of High Icelandic. If you haven't seen it, I'd say it's worth to take a look at the AfD discussion there. My whole point is only that I think the subject deserves proper discussion, and this is not the place for it. In a normal AfD discussion I certainly wouldn't have voted "keep" without convincing arguments. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
          • But it should be defined, what argument are relevant in the english wiki. If it will be defined with certainity, I shall find them. "There is no such language at all" surely is not an argument. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted this nonsense, please. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 18:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse closure, keep deleted. AfD had six deletes, no keeps. No suggestion of any voting irregularities or debatable sysop judgement. I note too that the article has no real references; the fact that one of the external links is described as "Volgota, the main promo site" strongly suggests that the purpose of the article is not to synthesize published factual material into an encyclopedia article, but to promote a project. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Quite so. Nobody is arguing that the AfD was invalid. But for heaven's sake, that was over a year ago! A lot can change in the meantime. If Yaroslav can somehow substantiate his claims about the number of speakers, and provide some verifiable info regarding press coverage, then I can't see why the article wouldn't deserve a second chance. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • In what way can I substantiate it? What info about the press is verifiable? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I see no reason to believe that this Yaroslav fellow (among others) has any existence beyond that of a sockpuppet created to vote in this deletion review..Timothy Usher 05:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
        • But I do! User's first contribution was dated 10 June, 18:49 (UTC). This deletion review was dated 11 June, 9:32 (UTC). So tell me: how can this account have been created with the sole purpose of voting here, if there wasn't any vote yet? I think it's always better to assume good faith! —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 07:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted, nn and ue. Also, there seems to be a campaign to start a separate Wikipedia in this language. What's next Klingon and Elvish Wikipedias? --Irpen 01:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • There used to be a wikipedia in Klingon, but it has been closed down. An Elvish wikipedia has been proposed, but I don't think there's enough support for it. BTW, I'm not thát frequent a guest here; what does "ue" mean? —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 05:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
      • Those must have been shut down for a reason. ue=unencyclopedic, nn=non-notable. --Irpen 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Nonsense. --Ghirla -трёп- 15:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. Nonsense of course. Elk Salmon 08:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete - Article is present in four Wikipedians (ru:Сибирский язык, be:Сыбірская мова, eo:Siberia lingvo,uk:Сибiрська мова). Please see also discussion in Russian Wikipedia (ru:Обсуждение:Сибирский язык) There article is solved keep and increase. See also article Slovio - such constructed language --Yakudza 15:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Very Weak Overturn and immediate AfD - The original was just a stub; for the sake of process, the deleted content should have its day in court. Being a linguist, I am sure it will fail AfD. I think the effort might be notable enough to (very briefly) mention the attempted "promotion" of a dialect in another article (Russian language, maybe?), but it definately doesn't deserve its own article.--WilliamThweatt 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion per mikka & MaxSem, article is original research. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 01:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - no reliable sources, unverifiable. Vlad2000Plus 20:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - not notable. MaxiMaxiMax 04:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as original research. Edwardspec 05:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - this project is a recent artificial combination of dialect lexis differing from Standard Russian and Turkic loan words. There can be no native Siberian speakers using this language or understanding it. All the claim about 5 or 7 million speakers is a clear fiction: the Siberian dialects of Russian certainly do exist, but they are more than one, use sometimes rather different lexis and all are closer to Standard Russian than this eclectic combination of their specific traits. --Mitrius 05:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - not notable (there are no native speakers of this language), original research and promo.DonaldDuck 06:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Undelete I propose undelete the article to make the new version accessible to the community. Only then we can decide whether this article contains OR. (During the discussion it may be marked by the OR-tag). Then, after everybody knows what is the discussion about we could revote whether to delete or not.
    Now it's look like organized by the Communist Party persecution against Boris Pasternak when the people who had never read his poetry fiercely criticized it.--AndriyK 10:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, Andy, but you are seeing now, that the majority of russians are not like you. They destroyed both Russian empires, Czarist Russia, and Communist Russia by the same way which you can see here. What harm is for their if local dialect will develop? No harm, but by such relation they kill yourself. Well, it is good for siberian separatists, if their stupidity will increase. Let they do all this:-) All this only approaches the day, when Russia will bacame free and democratic federation of Ukrainians, Belorussians, Siberians, Novgorodians and Don Cossacs. Slava Sibiri! Sibirska Volgota! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per WP:NOR, mikka, MaxSem, anetode, etc. --Ru.spider 11:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I should - again - point out that this has become a discussion about the language, and not about the way it has been deleted. All I was saying is this: since this is obviously NOT a case of G4 (different editor, different text, quite a span of time between the original AfD and the recreated article) a normal AfD would be warranted instead of a speedy deletion. I'm getting the impression that some people here want to have it deleted at all cost. Look for example at this: a call of a certain Russian user to other Russian users to come over here and vote for deletion. To my taste, that is pretty disgusting! And it makes me suspect that there's more to the language than meets the eye... —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - What's next separate wikipedias in US and British spelling? --Kuban Cossack 14:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:IJzeren_Jan/Siberian_undelete_discussion&oldid=1140213211"