Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Scandinavian Norwegian dialects
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was delete. Coffee 15:49, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] East Scandinavian Norwegian dialects
- I'm relisting this because of the lack of response in this nomination's first go-around. Dmcdevit·t 06:45, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
Original research most likely based solely on the fact that SIL International on very shaky grounds have classified the two official written standards of Norwegian though they were spoken languages (Norwegian has no official spoken standard language) and placed the one based on written Danish (Bokmål) among the East Scandinavian languages, despite the fact that spoken Norwegian is considered a West Scandinavian language in literally all other sources, encyclopedias and linguistic literature alike. The article contains no (factual) information that isn't already mentioned in Norwegian language or Norwegian dialects and should be deleted as an altogether misguiding and flawed article title.
Peter Isotalo 12:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
- Don't know. Sounds like a content dispute? Kim Bruning 23:59, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
Keep and rewrite to reflect the above controversy. There's a source right in the article text, which you also mention, so the issue is not unverifiable, it is disputed. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:31, 2005 August 20 (UTC)- Uhm, there's no source in the text at all. There's a link to SIL in the infobox, but their entries are on written standards of Norwegian which are not used by people speaking certain dialects, but are up to the discretion and language-political views of the individual speaker. The classification is founded on the fact that Norwegians wrote in Danish when Norway was part of Denmark and that Bokmål is based on written Danish. However, to use this fact to support the claim that everyone who write Bokmål actually speak Danish (or a language derived from Danish) is pretty far-fetched. The Ethnologue entry does not mention anything about the spoken dialects in this article. I would not mind to be proven wrong about this, but I would like to see it done with proper sources and reasoning. / Peter Isotalo 15:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- While I think this issue might deserve mention, this article is not good and I'm not familiar enough to reform it. No vote. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:42, 2005 August 21 (UTC)
- Current article has no value. I have read the Ethnologue entry for Norwegian and, quite frankly, it's bullshit. The article also contains false information. But I find myself agreeing with Christopher Parham. Punkmorten 15:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- SIL's credibility is truly crappy when it comes to North Germanic languages. Their separate classification of Scanian and blatant factual errors in synonyms for what they like to call "Dalecarlian" is enough to disregard them as a credible authority in these matters. Just the fact that they're inventing English names for languages is bad enough. It's not a matter of POV, it's just a complete lack of logic in some of the entries. Hopefully, they'll amend this in the 16th edition of the Ethnologue. / Peter Isotalo 16:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete These dialects do not exist. Sam Vimes 22:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
