Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivernic language

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect to Primitive Irish. Deathphoenix 03:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ivernic language

There is no evidence whatsoever that this language existed. Google links point to pages about druidism and clones of the Wikipedia. (I've nothing against neo-druidism, but "Ivernic" is not an attested Brythonic language. Evertype 15:23, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

  • Comment: This would seem to be a 'not verifiable' nomination, not a 'patent nonsense' one. Kappa 18:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. Clearly not "patent nonsense" according to the policy. This link references two etymological notes from the scholarly journal Ériu by T.F. O'Rahilly, showing that the Ivernic language has been proposed in scholarly literature by a person of some standing, so it's doubtful if even "not verifiable" applies. --Nicknack009 01:24, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry. I fixed the nomination tag. Evertype
  • Delete, not notable. Megan1967 01:52, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • There's some evidence on the web of an Iverni people, one of the Celtic tribes of ancient Ireland. There's virtually no evidence on the Web that they spoke a distinct language from any of the others; the overwhelming majority of references are Wikipedia mirrors. The footnotes that Nicknack009 cites can be just as easily seen as being simply adjectival references to the Iverni themselves, rather than proof of a distinct language. Delete unless more solid references can be shown. Bearcat 04:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Delete as unverifiable original research. --Angr 12:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)Voted changed in light of re-write; see below. --Angr 22:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I have to say, this looks kind of verified. If correctly cited, the article Nicknack009 found - O’Rahilly (T. F.) Ériu 13, 1942 - is certainly referring to details of an Ivernic language, presumably without surviving materials but attested in loanwords. That would certainly be worthy of treatment here. Weak keep pending confirmation of the reference. - Mustafaa 21:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd also be interested in seeing what O'Rahilly says about Ivernic. Unfortunately my collection of Ériu journals only dates back to 1994. I suspect, however, that he is using "Ivernic" as a name for a hypothetical Brythonic language to account for the large number of Brythonic loanwords in Old Irish. If that's true, then that hypothesis is no longer widely accepted, since most people believe the source of those loanwords is an Irish presence in Wales (which is attested by Irish Ogham inscriptions in Wales) rather than a Brythonic presence in Ireland. --Angr 07:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Very interesting. If that proves to be the case, however, I would certainly say keep as, or at least redirect to, an article explaining this hypothesis and why it has been rejected. There is value in having articles on disproven scholarly hypotheses, such as phlogiston: they clarify the history of the field. - Mustafaa 19:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Looks like you're right: - Mustafaa 19:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Quoted material hidden to avoid the sleepless, all-seeing eye of Google at at the request of its author. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

If the Sanas Cormaic mention can be confirmed, this would be interesting to add. - Mustafaa 19:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Mustafaa has made a massive rewrite of the article, acknowledging that Ivernic is hypothetical and that most linguists now prefer the theory that Brythonic loanwords are present in Irish due to the Irish presence in Wales. Nevertheless, I have to keep my vote as delete, on the grounds that Ivernic is nonnotable. A mention at Old Irish of the Ivernic hypothesis should suffice. --Angr 20:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough; I'm inclined to agree. But if that's your suggestion, shouldn't that be a merge and redirect vote? - Mustafaa 22:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay, you've convinced me. In light of Mustafaa's rewrite, I'm changing my vote to merge and redirect to Primitive Irish. Oops, looks like I forgot to sign. This is me: --Angr 07:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Primitive Irish Evertype 01:40, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • Hate to reactivate the discussion here, but... looking over this more carefully, I've realized that, if the quotes are accurate, the existence of an Ivernic language surviving in Munster up to the 9th century is confirmed by early Irish sources. What seems to be questionable is not whether the language existed, but whether it is actually the source of Irish's Brythonic loanwords. Of course, if all we know about it is that it existed, that doesn't make for much of an article; but that would suggest redirecting to Iverni, rather than to Primitive Irish. - Mustafaa 07:28, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, Mustafaa's rewrite is an interesting and useful short article. I favour keeping under the current title rather than redirecting, especially in the light of the previous comment. — Zeimusu | Talk 03:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • It is still unattested as far as I am concerned, and should be merged with another article. Whether Primitive Irish or Iverni or Words of Brythonic origin in Irish I don't mind, but it's too hypothetical for a main article. Evertype 09:22, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)
    • There are plenty of articles here on hypothetical topics - and in some cases even on disproven hypotheses. Consider luminiferous aether, Nostratic, Nilo-Saharan, astrobiology, Many-worlds interpretation... I'm open to the argument that it's nonnotable, but I don't see anything wrong with a main article dealing with a hypothetical topic. - Mustafaa 01:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • I think that all of the hypothetical topics you've mentioned are far better attested than this one. I still think it should be merged until it's got enough in it to merit separation. Somebody go dig up a wordlist, at least! Evertype 12:03, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.