Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 March 5

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 keep. I note, however, that even many of the "keep" voters expressed reservations about the current content and tone of the article. Based on that concensus, I am going to reimpose the "cleanup" tag. Rossami (talk) 00:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vampire lifestyle

Overly credulous and fairly ridiculous description of a subculture that already gets five paragraphs in the main vampire article. Cleaning this up would necessitate cutting it down to the size of vampire's section about this group. This was previously VfDed in June 2004 (see Talk:Vampire lifestyle/Delete); the majority voted to delete, but no consensus was reached, and of those who voted "Keep", most added that it should be sent to Cleanup. Eight months' worth of edits later, only a few of the crazier claims have been removed. Redirect to vampire. -Sean Curtin 02:37, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, verifiably notable. ComCat 02:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Margins of margins of margins of the self-deluded, and here presented as if verifiable truth. I had voted delete before, and I do so again, here. It surely hasn't gotten any better in the past 8 months, and I thought we had consensus to delete. Geogre 02:51, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to vampire then drive a stake through the heart of this article (or redirect). This essay is a long POV piece. It is true that, whether one likes it or not, there are people who believe as explained in this article; however, the parts that are not POV or simply unverifiable are only a slight icing on the exising subsection in vampire. HyperZonk^talk 03:28, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, with reservations. Article needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 05:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep this unfortunate article. Again, cleanup. Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 08:04, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but make a little more factual and less far-fetched. There is nothing wrong with encyclopaedically describing a subculture, provided that the writer doesn't come across as a likely member of it! 80.255 10:37, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to vampire. Cleanup would leave it looking very similar to the subsection there, which doesn't (quite) need to be broken out into its own article. —Korath (Talk) 16:35, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, agree with Korath. Foobaz·✐ 05:29, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but remove/rework POV content where appropriate. Notable subject and a major subculture. I'd check to make sure this isn't duplicated under similar topics such as Goth (I know Goths aren't vampires but people often confuse the two lifestyles) and Masquerade. 23skidoo 05:31, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep a notable, though fringe, subculture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:30, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to vampire. --Carnildo 21:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as its own article about subculture. -- Decumanus 02:36, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Delete Give them a week ultimatim: if the pov isn't gone, the article should go. Zantastik 07:49, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Zantastik, a vampire lifestle article without the POV would be fine, i like the ultimatim idea--Jersyko 17:35, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This subculture deserves its own article. -Hapsiainen 00:06, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete or merge with vampire
• Are there any vampires to back this up? My point exactly. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:39, Mar 19, 2005 (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.

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 with axis of evil. ugen64 00:22, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Axis of weasel

Yet again another nonce term that will be discarded in a week or so. RickK 08:45, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, notable term. 80.255 11:00, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It is just slang, and won't last. Evertype 15:42, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
• Keep as a proof of stupidity of some US politicians. --Pgreenfinch 16:31, 5 Mar 2005

  A vote is a vote, but that one looks a lot like disruption to prove a point. Gazpacho

• Delete. It can be mentioned in the axis of evil article, no need for a separate topic. BTfromLA 19:59, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with axis of evil, Redirect. Rl 22:31, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Given the strong feelings Bush generates and the general catchiness of this phrase, I would expect it, had it actually been in significant use, to garner many more google hits than it does (436 displayed). There's already a mention at axis of evil, and that's enough. —Korath (Talk) 23:24, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Whatever happens with this article, by the way, it should be merged with axis of weasels first. —Korath (Talk) 23:29, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non notable phrase. Megan1967 01:37, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with axis of evil. This particular bit of U.S. stupidity doesn't deserve its own article. DaveTheRed 03:32, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as suggested above. Radiant! 10:55, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge. This phrase was in common use for a month in 2003 to mark the perceived duplicity of countries such as Germany and France in their opposition to the Iraq War. It was invented by blogger Scott Ott of the Scrappleface website and used by the New York Post. However, it fell out of vogue very quickly afterwards. Capitalistroadster 18:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not in wide or continued use--nixie 02:56, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Axis of evil. Gazpacho 11:19, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Wasn't it Axis of Weevil not Weasel. I could be imagining it, but I don't think I am. Redirect --Rentastrawberry 02:00, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Axis of evil. --Carnildo 21:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge. Not in use. Rossami (talk) 01:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Axis of evil. Burschik 16:29, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Axis of weasels. Nothing to merge, as the info is duplicative. --BD2412 22:25, 9 Mar 2005 (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.

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 delete. ugen64 00:52, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Westcountry_Brythonic

There is no evidence whatsoever that this language existed. It's a conlang. Google links point to entertaining forums like http://groups.msn.com/DevonsCelticLanguage/. That's fine, but this is not one of the attested Brythonic languages. Evertype 15:34, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable, possible hoax. Megan1967 01:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This user appears to be a serial VfD addict, and appears to spend very limited time assessing each application. On a quick sample tested a vast majority were for deletion. Is this a valid vote? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=50&offset=250&hideminor=0&namespace=&target=Megan1967 Dewnans 03:00 11 March 2005
    • Yes, it's a valid vote. She's allowed to vote on this page even if she only spent 15 seconds reading the article. Of herself she writes, "I am neither an inclusionist or deletionist (although I have been accused of being one or the other). An article should be judged solely on its merits." If the vast majority of her votes were in favor of deletion, it's because the vast majority of pages on VFD deserve to be deleted. --Angr 06:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Quite so, anyone may vote. Due to occasional sockpuppetry; anonymous or brand new editor's votes are given less weight than those of established accounts. If a consensus agrees to delete, it will be (eventually) deleted. If they agree to keep or whatever, then that should be done. One vote usually can't yank an article in the VfD process. Fire Star 07:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment On this, let Wikipedia be judged! If a 15 second perusal from a serial 15 second peruser is the rule, then god help you all!! westcountryguy
• Seems to me like more of an unverified (and quite possibly unverifiable) theory than a hoax per se. I can't even find much on the web about this Joseph Biddulph to assess his academic reputation, but the fact that most of his work is self-published does look pretty dodgy. Ethnologue doesn't list the language here, though, which suggests to me that it's pretty clearly unattested by reputable linguists. Delete. Bearcat 04:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The fact that it's not in Ethnologue doesn't mean it'd unattested by reputable linguists. Sumerian isn't in Ethnologue either. (If it comes to that, Yinglish is in Ethnologue, despite not being recognized as a real language by linguists.) However, from looking at the external link provided, it's pretty clear someone, in a fit of unbridled Arthurian fervor, has attempted to reconstruct Proto-Brythonic, and slapped the names "Westcountry Brythonic", "Old Devonian", and "Old Deunansek" on it. (Shouldn't that be "Hen-Deunansek" anyway?) Anyway, delete. (If anyone cares, I'm going to be nominating an article on another Celtic language for deletion in a couple weeks if no one proves its existence soon, so watch this space!) --Angr 06:58, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Hen Deunansek?? How does that come about? In local speach (Devonian) "old" is koth (kozh in Breton - meaning "ancient"). Hen?? I don't know this word. However "Yeth" I do - which means "undead" or "returned from the dead" as in "Yeth Hounds" I do understand. Refer (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A457102). Note that this is different to Cornwall. Why would a welsh word "Hen" be appropriate?? Westcountryguy
      • The word hen 'old' is attested in Welsh, Cornish, and Breton (Holger Pederson, Vergleichende Grammatik der Keltischen Sprachen, vol. 1, p. 36, Göttingen (1909): Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht), and it is cognate with words for 'old' in other Celtic and Indo-European languages, so it seems reasonable to reconstruct it for Proto-Southwest-Brythonic. --Angr 09:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Deletethere is no evidence this language existed. It will also result in a conflict with other articles on Brythonic languages. Web searches will show pages on Devon with the intention of creating this language to imitate the modern Celtic nations and languages, especially of Cornwall, and an attempt to invent a Celtic Devon based on invention and imitation. This appears to be a hoax which is confusing to those trying to protect the modern Celtic languages.
  • Above was by anon User 131.111.8.101. This user appears to have a history of vandalising articles including those on Devon, Sophie, Countess of Wessex and Gay. Dewnans 03:00 10 March 2005
    • Note: User:131.111.8.101 is an IP address belonging to one of the Cambridge University Web Cache Servers and as such is shared by at least several thousand distinct users. --Angr 07:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The entry is supported by a publication "A Handbook of Westcountry Brythonic" ( ISBN 1 897999 06 2 ) and is a genuine study of the celtic language of south west Britain circa 700AD. The author Joseph Biddulph has produced a number of publications on minor or ancient languages. It certainly is not a hoax and I suspect that the nomination for deletion is sourced from sources who do not like to consider that areas other than Cornwall might also have Celtic elements. I suggest somebody check with Joseph Biddulph - or his publisher - before assuming he is a hoax. Dewnans 22.15, 7 March 2005 (UTC) Further to my earlier posting here is a link supporting the historical existence of the language (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~marisal/ie/celtic.html)Dewnans 22.30, 7 March 2005
  • Above was by anon User User:203.26.206.129. RickK 01:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • Does your life have any purpose? Plymguy 18:27 9 <arch 2005.
      • No not anon - me - again Dewnans 10:30 9 March 2005
  • Citing a writer's self-published work as proof of a language that isn't attested to anywhere outside of that writer's work is amazingly tautological. Bearcat 01:26, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • the above referenced site (http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~marisal/ie/celtic.html) does provide independent (from Joseph Biddulph) evidence of Westcountry Brithonic's existence, and indeed references a traditional view of the celtic language tree that includes SW Brittonic (McCone) and an alternative structure that also has SW Brittonic included (Schmidt).
      • It accepts the hypothesis that there was a common ancestor, but it's hardly proof that this was the common ancestor. The study of linguistics requires peer review of properly published (ie. not self-published) research, just like any other science, before a theory can be treated as encyclopedic fact; there's no evidence that this proposed language has undergone that process. Relying on one self-published pamphlet as a priori proof of a language's existence ("it's true because this guy says so!") is like basing comparative religious research on Jack Chick tracts. Bearcat 19:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • No one claimed that Biddulph was making any such claim, and he only ever claimed that he was trying to reconstruct the language. he also mentioned (as did the article) that there were some areas of uncertainty. What is inaccuarte about this? Dewnans 05:30 12 mMrch 2005
• Keep This language (under a number of different names), is well attested (see link presented by Dewnans). It is well known that Cornish and Breton are closely related (being derived from the same root language), compared to either with Welsh. Old Devonian/West Country Brythonic/South West Brittonic (defunct from about 900AD) are names given to the precursor of Cornish and Breton, being the language of the Dumnonii (from which the name Devon is reputed to have been derived - hence Old Devonian). Cornwall was a part of the kingdom of the Dumnonii. If this language had not existed, Cornish could not have come into existence. Plymguy 00:05, 7 March 2005
  • Note: user's first edit. Bearcat 15:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Joseph Biddulph is this guy in Wales who publishes samizdat photocopied treatises; I have a copy of one of them on African writing systems. Having an ISBN does not confer scholarly status on any publication. Biddulph is his own publisher. A Google search gives also http://www.btinternet.com/~john.whitbourn/updates_for_site/03rd_Oct_2004.htm which indicates clearly that Devonian is "a hypothetical 'What-if-the-English-never-arrived'" language. The suggestion that I "do not like to consider that areas other than Cornwall might also have Celtic elements" is just bollocks. The fact is that no Celtic scholar posits or recognizes "Westcountry Brythonic". Show me a manuscript, please. I am currently typesetting Thomas and Williams' edition of Bewnans Ke, a Cornish MS which was lost for years in the basement of the National Library of Wales. Evertype 00:38, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • John Whitbourn? (Fx: checks website to see if it's the author I'm thinking of. It is). He's a gifted author of alternate histories, and doubtless he would be able to use an invented alternate timeline language in one of his stories, but given that I've had an interest in Celtic languages for over 30 years and never heard of "Westcountry Brythonic" before, I have no hesitation in voting Delete. -- Arwel 04:10, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Evertype - you have the wrong reference. The site you refer to above isn't referencing Biddulph's "A Handbook of Westcountry Brythonic" but rather a book by Robert Craig (On Dornlivr in Yeh Vriton Vodern) which Biddulph publishes. Craig's book is unreservedly a "what if" language, but the two are distinct. http://www.cs.vu.nl/~dick/biddulph/pubindex.html. As you can see from the link Biddulph publishes a number of books on a number of languages. Perhaps Evertype will pick on Lithuanian or Slovak next! Dewnans 02.30, 8 March 2005
      • • The above is User:203.26.206.129
        • Yes - known as Dewnans 01.15 9 March 2005. Did I forget to login?
      • (Laughs out loud.) Lithuanian and Slovak are attested languages, Dewnans. "Westcountry Brythonic" is not attested. Evertype 11:08, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
• Delete. Hypothetical language, self-published. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Brythonic is obviously real, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that the West Country dialect had any unique peculiarities - and let's face it, I'd rather take Michael Everson's word for it than Joseph Biddulph's. - Mustafaa 06:58, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Sweet of you to say. Evertype
• Comment the page supplied by Dewnans supports only the hypothesis that Breton and Cornish derive from a common ancestor, labeled "SW Brittonic". No one denies that. What those of us who have been studying Celtic languages for many years (like Evertype, Arwel, and me) deny is that SW Brittonic is an attested language. There are no documents written in SW Brittonic/Westcountry Brythonic/Old Devonian. It is a reconstructed proto-language like Proto-Indo-European, but not one that is notable enough to earn a Wikipedia entry. --Angr 07:05, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article references a language that must have existed. This is not contested (see Angr above). The common elements of Cornish and Breton and the differences to Welsh support the fact that the language was not common across all of the UK. There are references in the Anglo Saxon records to surviving local Westcountry Celtic placenames (eg Cructan). What seems at issue here is not that the language existed but whether Biddulph has been able to perform an accurate reconstruction. The fact there there are uncertainties in this reconstruction is already mentioned. westcountryguy 08:00 8 Mar 2005.
  • Note: user's first edit.
    • Note: and this is my second. So? At least I have read Biddulph's booklet.
      • Good gods. Yeah, I've got a copy of Biddulph's 32-page samizdat pamphlet Native African Alphabets of Modern Times. It is not an impressive piece of scholarship. Evertype 10:42, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia has a clearly established policy around VfD voting; the vote has to be a consensus of established users, else anybody with an agenda could get their friends to overrun the vote. Votes from users whose first edit is to vote on an already-running VfD do not count. Bearcat 15:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • Comment. The written policy does not say this. It says that "If you suspect a vote of being a sockpuppet or otherwise invalid, mark it as such with a comment, and any pertinent links, and leave it there. The admin who reviews the discussion will investigate and decide whether or not to take that vote into account". New and genuine contributors can add value to such a debate such as this. Dewnans 23:00 * March 2005
            • The above is User:203.26.206.129. RickK 01:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
              • Yup - still me Dewnans
• Delete as original research. Radiant! 10:53, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep To one who commented, this is an attempt to create a Celtic identity in Devon where one should not exist - what arrogance to assume that Cornwall is the be all and end all of Celtic identity and history within England. Deleting this article is a suppression of knowledge and stunting of information. Wikipedia is never going to be a serious source of information due to the nature of its contributors without evidence of follow-up research, and that in itself means that this article should remain. England's Celtic identity cannot be simply deleted because it offends pathetic Cornish nationalism, and with all due respect, Americans living in Germany can profess authority on the subject but not the deep feelings and emotions attached to such a subject as those for whom this is their very cultural identity. If said person is considering Cumbric for his second Celtic language to be deleted as I fear he might be, the fact that remnants of this language are still used on a daily basis attests to its previous existence.
  • This vote by 203.79.109.142.
    • CommentThe Wikipedia is not an organ for the creation or preservation of Celtic identity in England. It is an encyclopaedia. Biddulph describes his book thus: Handbook of West Country Brythonic It's time to discover the lost Celtic language of South West England, as spoken circa 700 A.D. and earlier, in the time of King Arthur. Reconstructed from its daughter languages, Breton and Cornish, and hints in early sources, it is now available only from the booklet below, while stocks last. A good way for those who have never studied a Celtic language to begin a new range of experience. The author boldly reconstructs the forms of the vanished Brythonic language of Southwest England, the ancestor of Cornish and Breton, with notes on the life, the placenames, grammar and vocabulary of pre-Saxon Wessex. If it is Arthur whose grave is shown to you at Glastonbury, then this could have been the language he spoke. Anyway, this book attempts to unravel some of the puzzles left to us by remote antiquity, and this in an accessible and friendly fashion. 36 pages. Price: see top of page. ISBN 1 897999 06 2. A thirty-six page samizdat reconstruction of the parent of Cornish and Breton does not confer attestation upon a language. Texts do. Evertype 11:18, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
      • Comment to the author of the last paragraph but one: please sign your contributions. And don't worry, I know enough about Cumbric to know what the evidence for it is, and that it is real. (The language I'm skeptical of is Neo-Gaelic). It's all well and good for people living in England but outside Cornwall to feel proud of their Celtic heritage and to want to learn more about it. I'm all in favor of people contributing to scholarly research on the reconstruction of Proto-Southwest-Brittonic and Proto-Brittonic and Proto-Celtic and Proto-Indo-European. And I have no objection to people making up languages for fun based on their interest in ancient languages; heck, one of my favorite pastimes is designing a version of Modern English based on the premise "What if the Norman Conquest had never happened?" — but I don't put it up at Wikipedia and pretend it's an attested language! This article is not a scholarly contribution to comparative Brittonic linguistics (and even if it were, it would be original research and ought to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, not posted here), it's basically about an artificial language like Interlingua, but one based on Brittonic rather than Romance. --Angr 11:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment – “The nominator asserts that the information in this article is unverifiable.” Having read this, I searched the article for something that was unverifiable, but in vain. The Dumnonii certainly existed and their language was a dialect of Brythonic (P-Celtic). Whatever that language was, it gave rise to the later Cornish and Breton dialects. Joseph Biddulph most definitely produced a booklet in which he made an attempt to reconstruct the language. There has most definitely been an increased interest in the language in recent times. As far as I can see, the only thing that cannot be verified is the name of this particular dialect of Brythonic, but that is not unusual. I am sure that the Cornish in the early part of the last millennium did not refer to their language as Middle Cornish. Such names are modern, and McCone and Schmidt refer to the Brythonic language of South West Britain as SW Brittonic. Names cannot be verified. In one aspect, it is even possible to assert that elements of the language are still in daily use, in the form of place-names. Professor Richard Coates and Dr. Andrew Breeze, in their book “Celtic Voices English Places” identify a considerable number of West Country names, which are of Brythonic origin, and came into existence during the period which has been specified for this language. It is therefore certain that such place-names would have been formulated in that language. So what specifically is the information in the article, which is unverifiable? Plymguy 17:21 8 March 2005.
  • What is unverifiable is that there are any texts in the specific language concerned, Biddulph's reconstructed "Westcountry Brythonic". This is different from what McCone or Schmidt or Kenneth Jackson would describe as Southwest Brittonic. Biddulph's reconstruction has no scholarly currency, being "attested" only in his thirty-six page booklet. Identifying Brythonic elements in West Country names is not the same thing as this reconstructed "Westcountry Brythonic" Evertype 19:03, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
    • As there is nothing in the article, which claims the existence of surviving texts, how can you claim that information in the article is unverifiable? Please answer the question which I asked, not the one that you wished I had asked. Plymguy 00:12 8 March 2005
      • What isn't verifiable is that Biddulph's reconstruction "Westcountry Brythonic" is the real Brythonic language which would have been the parent of Cornish and Breton. Evertype 10:42, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
        • I would suggest that you read the article more carefully. It does not claim that Biddulph's attempted reconstruction is the definitive version of the language. In fact it warns readers of the "inherent level of uncertainty". I also find your condemnation of a publication, which you have never read, to be most unprofessional. Plymguy 13:20 8 March 2005
  • "Attested", in linguistics, means that we have either surviving documents written in that language, or other historical records from that time which clearly refer to the existence of that language. In this case, we have neither; we have only Biddulph and the belief that Cornish and Breton need a common ancestor. Celtic roots in place names can be a clue, but they do not, in and of themselves, attest to a language's existence, since there are any number of other processes that can result in that. Bearcat 19:06, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • What are these other processes that you refer to? Plymguy 00:16 8 March 2005.
      • You don't see any possibility that the names could have been assimilated directly from Cornish? I saw the discussion board argument against that in my Google search, but the fact is that we're talking about only the next county over during a time when there wasn't rapid standardization of spoken language across England, so the fact that Celtic placenames aren't distributed evenly across all of England isn't a convincing argument against alternative explanations. Bearcat 15:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • This is not possible, as at the time when these place-names came into existence (5th – 9th centuries AD), the Cornish language did not exist. Cornwall was not a separate entity at that time and the territory west of the Tamar was an integral part of the realm of the Dumnonii. Also, it is probable (from the study of place-names) that the SW Brittonic language was prevelant well beyond the current territorial limits of Devon. The problem with trying to determine the spread of languages from linguistic studies alone is that many of the solutions arrived at turn out to be historically, archaeologically and genetically inept. Only a multi-disciplinary approach can be productive. Plymguy 09:27 9 March 2005
  • Comment: If you really are interested in Brythonic placenames, you may consider adding an article to the Wikipedia a place to list and discuss them. That's encyclopaedic, and doesn't refer to a specific reconstruction. (Trying to be encouraging.) Evertype 19:19, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm all for having information on such traces of Celtic as survive in the West Country, or anywhere else in England, be they placenames, loanwords, or even inscriptions. But given the paucity of information on early Brythonic in general, it makes no sense to separate that information out by subregion; Brythonic language seems a better article to deal with those issues in. Moreover, such discussion should be restricted to the data at hand, rather than a speculative reconstruction the bulk of which must be, by force of circumstances, drawn from related Celtic languages rather than from attested records. - Mustafaa 21:17, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The article is clearly in need of editing, to reflect that this language is a reconstruction, but I don't see this as sufficient reason to delete it. The fact that Cornish and Breton evolved from a common ancestor seems uncontroversial, and Cornish itself was reconstructed from existing manuscripts after dying out in the early 18th century. Are we to delete the page on Cornish too? Nick xylas
  • Comment This kind of silliness is just another example of how ridiculous this article is. Cornish was revived as a spoken language based on an actually attested language found in many manuscripts. Cornish was not "reconstructed". Neo-Cornish orthography was fixed, and the paradigms were worked out, but Cornish as a language is a verifiable fact. Westcountry Brythonic, on the other hand, is Biddulph's creation. Evertype 10:42, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with the previous posting by Nick. The West Country Brythonic language is hypothetical and this needs to be emphasised. I think it is quite reasonable to propose that before the (later) arrival of English in Cornwall, Devon and west Somerset, there was a common speech in that region that was probably very much like Cornish, and from which Cornish and Breton originated. Exevalleyboy
  • Comment: Such discussion belongs as a subsection in an article about Brythonic languages. Evertype 10:42, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
  • Note: user's first and sole edit. Bearcat 15:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: Exevalleyboy is a regular poster on other forums, such as h2g2's Celtic Devon site.
      • Wikipedia can only base its assessment of his vote on his history here, not his history on other sites that we're unaffiliated with and don't know anything about. Bearcat 05:46, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia could look to contributions on similar forums in assessing the validity/quality of those participating in this debate. To have credibility it should not be a "club". Here is a link to H2g2 (another "encyclopedic" body if rather less formal than Wikipedia) if those assessing the debate wish to check out exevalleyboys credibility, validity or being a sockpuppet (?). http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/dontpanic-tour Dewnans 23:00 10 March 2005
• Comment I note that the notice has changed from 'patent nonsense' to 'unverifiable'. There are two points here. Firstly there seems agreement that 'SW Brittonic' (or Westcountry Brythonic) did exist as a language and is included in Celtic family trees such as those used by McCone and Schmidt. If it existed, and is worth mention by those authors, why not here? The second issue is whether Biddulph's reconstruction is accurate. This does not relate to whether Wikipedia should have an entry on this language, but rather how that reconstruction is mentioned. In any event it seems judgements are being made on Biddulph's handbook without studying it. The facts are that a handbook has been written and there is no reason this should not be mentioned. Dewnans 03:00 8 March 2005
  • Comment: Don't read anything into the notice change; I'd got the wrong tag in the first time. And no, there might be agreement that Cornish and Breton had a parent unity, but there is no attestation of that and Biddulph's 36-page opus is certainly not an example of scholarly consensus as to what such a reconstructed language might have been like. And a parent unity is a continuum of dialects, most likely, merging also into Welsh. There is not agreement that "SW Brittonic" did exist as a language. Nor do we have any texts in it whatsoever. Nor do we have a proper reconstruction, as we do for Proto-Germanic, for instance. Evertype 10:42, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
    • I have analysed your example of Proto-Germanic, and I would estimate that the uncertainties involved in this language are substantially greater than those for West Country Brythonic (or SW Brittonic). There are no extant examples of Proto-Germanic, but West Country Brythonic has a wealth of regional place-names to draw upon. Knowledge of Proto-Germanic has been obtained using the comparative method in order to partially reconstruct the language. If you care to read Biddulph’s booklet, you will discover that this is precisely what he sets out to do, with some success (in my opinion). By comparing early Cornish and early Breton, Biddulph has been able to identify many of the common features. As the two languages were separated geographically following the 5th century migrations from Dumnonia to Armorica, such common features must logically also have been features of the parent language. The West Country place-names helped to provide Biddulph with corroborating evidence in his partial reconstruction. Also by comparing early Welsh with the above two languages, Biddulph was able to determine that the level of correlation between them was significantly lower than the correlation between early Cornish and early Breton. These results imply that the parent language must have been significantly different from early Welsh (although both were clearly in the P-Celtic group). Corroborating evidence for this can be obtained from a study of the history of Dark Age population dynamics. This is something that linguists usually fail to take into account, and thus often end up with egg all over their faces, when they propose language dynamics models, which turn out to be historically inept. I have seen many instances of this. Only by taking an inter-disciplinary approach can one hope to arrive at language dynamics solutions with any degree of confidence. Plymguy 09:33 9 March 2005.
      • Correction Proto-Germanic was not reconstructed on the basis of local placenames. Proto-Germanic was reconstructed on the basis of vast numbers of early documents in varieties of English, Frisian, Norse, Gothic, and Low and High German. Likewise, Proto-Brythonic maybe reconstructed on the basis of attested documents in Old and Middle Cornish, Old, Middle, and Modern Breton, Old, Middle, and Modern Welsh. The reconstruction of Proto-Brythonic may be informed by placenames in the West Country. But "West-Country Brythonic" cannot be reconstructed on the basis of them. Evertype 11:18, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
        • It has never been claimed that Biddulph attempted the partial reconstruction of SW Brittonic (or West Country Brythonic) by reference to place names alone, or even as his primary source. He claims to have searched out a number of the more common elements shared by early Cornish and early Breton, and only used the place-name elements (where applicable) as a check to ensure that his deductions were not demonstrably erroneous. Biddulph has not attempted to transcribe his proposed vocabulary in the form used by Jackson, or in accordance with IPA usage, as he was not writing for an academic audience. Instead, he used an anglicised phonetic format (giving examples), which would be understood by the layman. As SW Brittonic would almost certainly have been a purely spoken language, does this really matter? I have no doubt that the reconstruction of Proto-Brythonic could be attempted as you suggest, but there is strong evidence that an intermediate stage in the evolution of Brythonic existed. This has been identified by McCone, Schmidt and others. Kenneth Jackson, 1994, “Language and History in Early Britain” (Dublin) believed that Cumbric was closely related to Welsh, and also that a very close relationship existed between Cornish and Breton. The fact that the two groupings have been identified, has been seen as evidence for the intermediate stage referred to as SW Brittonic by these writers. Some have regarded a language termed W Brittonic (or Western British) as being the direct parent of Welsh and Cumbric, in addition to SW Brittonic (or South Western British) as being the direct parent of Cornish and Breton (Christopher A. Snyder, 2003, “The Britons” (Blackwell)). Snyder (and others) have also provided historical evidence for the two separate groupings, e.g. the migrations of the Rheged Britons to Gwynedd, and the well known migrations of Britons from Dumnonia to the Armorican penninsula. Reconstruction of an extinct language can never be regarded as a science as such, as the outcome will always be subjective, so any attempt (however academically based) will necessarily be subject to a considerable degree of uncertainty. Plymguy 18:26 14 March 2005.
        • No one can reconstruct a language in 36 pages, whether or not placenames are taken into account. Why is this article proposed for deletion? Because Biddulph's Westcountry Brythonic cannot possible be McCone's Southwest Brittonic in any meaningful sense, and therefore nothing can be said about this that oughtn't belong simply in the Brythonic languages article. Delete and merge relevant facts, if there are any facts to be had. Evertype 20:00, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
          • You will note that I did say that a PARTIAL reconstruction was attempted. Partial implies neither zero nor complete, but is defined as anywhere else on a continuous spectrum between the two. In the case of Biddulph’s attempt, it does not purport to be anything other than a very small ‘taster’ of what it probably looked and sounded like, i.e. just enough to get the reader interested and to take another closer look at those previously incomprehensible local place-names. No, this is far from being an exhaustive scholarly study, but for the increasing number of people with a keen interest in the Dark Age history of the region where SW Brittonic (or whatever name one cares to give it) was spoken at that time (current population about three to four million), it holds a growing fascination. For you to declare that it is not notable, because it represents a little known dialect within the Brythonic language group, would be to underestimate the current level of interest. Now that historians, archaeologists and (most recently) population geneticists are telling them that, to a very large extent, they are the descendents of the native ancient Britons, who have lived in the region for the last nine thousand years or so, they would like to know as much as possible about their early ancestors, their lives and evolving language prior to the transition to English speaking. Educational television programmes, such as “Meet the Ancestors”, “Britain BC’, ‘Britain AD” and “Blood of the Vikings” draw faurly large audiences. Encyclopaedias are not the exclusive reserve of academics to the exclusion of the inquisitive section of the general public. Just think how many sets of Encyclopaedia Britannica there are in ordinary people’s book-cases and sales of CD-Rom based volumes have never been higher. Who are you to adopt an elitist approach and declare that they do not need to know, just because you regard what they are interesed in as ‘non-notable’? I have seen hundreds of articles on Wikipedia concerning topics, which are far more trivial and non-notable than SW Brittonic, but there are obviously people out there who find them interesting, and there are apparently no ‘stuffy academics’ eager to have them deleted just to satisfy their own egos. I only wish that my own academic specialism was as popular with the general public, but the mathematics of fluid dynamics and jet acoustics just doesn’t seem to grab their imaginations in the same way that history and old languages do. Plymguy 00:33 15 Mar 2005.
            • Your point? This is an encyclopaedia. Relevant facts about Brythonic and its dialects (of which SW Brittonic would be one) should be in the Brythonic languages article. At such a time where there is so much information in that article that it is overfull, a second article on the specific SW dialect could be considered. This article, proposed for deletion is about Biddulph's conlang (about Biddulph's "attempt" at reconstruction, if you must), which is neither scientific nor notable. Stamping your feet and calling us "élitist" academics who want this article "deleted just to satisfy our own egos" is bollocks. This article should be deleted because it is not about a real linguistic entity (SW Brythonic). It's about a fiction (Westcountry Brythonic). Your own ad-hominem tantrums are extremely tedious. Why not stick to fluid dynamics and jet acoustics? Linguistics seems to have escaped you. Evertype 01:04, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
    • First you claim that there is no corroborating evidence that the language existed. Then, when we present such evidence "traditional view (as still promulgated by e.g. Kim McCone) and the revised view of K.H. Schmidt)", you choose to ignore it and still claim that there is no evidence. There are those who still say that there is no proof that Evolution is valid, so should articles on Evolution also be deleted? I also suspect that you know next to nothing about the history of the region in question. I have found that a multidisciplinary approach leads to a far better understanding of the linguistic influences than a narrow minded (linguistics only) attitude. Try reading some published papers in the fields of history, archaeology and population genetics, before you attempt to pontificate in future. Plymguy 13:06 8 March 2005
      • As Bearcat said above, we may accept the hypothesis that there was a common ancestor for Cornish and Breton, but that is hardly proof that this was the common ancestor. I don't see why you think you ought to accuse me of not knowing anything about the history of the region. I've studied Celtic linguistics for many years. I have translated Roparz Hemon's Grammaire bretonne into English and was editor of Nicholas Williams' English-Cornish Dictionary. But if you want me to choose between a 784 pages by Kenneth Jackson and 36 pages by Joseph Biddulph, I will find it easy to do so. Evertype 16:13, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
        • Since when was Jackson a noted historian specialising in the South West of England? If Jackson was your only source of the history of the region, then it is little wonder that your knowledge of the subject leaves much to be desired. May I suggest W.G. Hoskins as a starting point. Plymguy 09:83 9 March 2005 (edited 14 March 2005).
          • Thanks for your insult personal attack. If you aren't able to judge between a 784 pages of Jackson's Language and History in Early Britain and 36 pages written by the heroic Mr Biddulph, I don't believe there is much we can discuss. Evertype 12:23, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
            • Please read what I said. I did not suggest Biddulph as a suitable source of information on the history of Devon and the West Country. I suggested Hoskins, who wrote what is considered to be the definitive work on the subject, but then I doubt that you have even heard of him. Plymguy 12:58 9 March 2005 (edited 14 March 2005).
              • Thanks for your insult personal attack. This isn't an article about the history of Devon and the West Country. It's an article about a linguistic entity. Biddulph is the source of Westcountry Brythonic and we believe that this linguistic entity does not deserve an article because, whatever Southwest Brittonic may have been, we do not consider that Mr Biddulph's reconstruction is a suitable source of information on it. Whatever facts there are about a linguistic entity prior to Cornish and Breton should be merged in the Brythonic languages article. Evertype 13:41, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
                • I should not have to tell someone of your (presumed) intellegence that languages do not exist in isolation. They only exist because people speak them. The study of population and language dynamics in a particular area is intimately concerned with the social history of that area. Perhaps if more linguists realised this, they could avoid the many embarrassing mistakes that they make. Even your own trusted Jackson made such a blunder in 1953 when he implied that Brythonic place-names in Devon must have originated before about 700AD. His reasoning was that at about that time King Ine of the West Saxons had fought with the British (Dumnonian) King Gerent, and “Celtic speech in Devon must thereafter have soon come to an end.” It appears that Jackson did not do his homework properly. If he had, he would have discovered that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle gave no outcome for this battle. Also he omitted to discover that two centuries later, Alfred the Great’s will mentions a considerable amount of land that he held among the ‘wealcynn’ in Devon. William of Malmesbury recorded that in the first half of the 10th century, King Athelstan evicted the Britons from Exeter. The modern historian Michael Wood concludes that Celtic speech was still in use in parts of Devon at the time of the Norman Conquest, and the medieval chronicler Tristram Risdon recorded that there were still pockets of Celtic speech in South Devon during the reign of Edward I. Perhaps if linguists paid a bit more attention to history, archaeology and population genetics, they would avoid making such fools of themselves. As for Biddulph’s attempted reconstruction, the article merely mentioned that it existed, and did not claim that it was the definitive version of the language. Remember that the case for deletion stipulates that the contents of the ARTICLE cannot be verified, NOT that the contents of BIDDULPH’S BOOK cannot be verified. Please get your facts straight and stick to the wording of your deletion proposal. Deviation from that purpose cannot be allowed. Stick to your initial allegation and provide proof, or withdraw it. Plymguy 18:13 9 March 2005.
                  • None of this changes the fact that the language this article discusses was essentially made up by Biddulph. Thanks to the recent edits made, the article now clearly states that, rather than implying that "Westcountry Brythonic" was an attested language like Cumbric or even Cornish. As a result of the rewrite, the label "unverifiable" may no longer be accurate; the article now says essentially "Westcountry Brythonic is a language that Joseph Biddulph made up", and that is certainly verifiable. But there are still reasons to delete: as an invented language, Westcountry Brythonic is not notable compared with other invented languages like Esperanto and Klingon, which have thousands of learners. Westcountry Brythonic, on the other hand, appears to have only a handful of learners, most of whom seem to be Devonian nationalists who really wish Devon had its own Brythonic language like Wales, Cornwall, and Brittany do. --Angr 10:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                    • Well, I'm no "Devonian nationalist", in fact I'm usually on the receiving end of the Celtic Devonists' illiberal attitude to those who they percieve as their enemies, due to my interest in the Anglo-Saxon period in general and Wessex in particular (I am the founder and former chairman of Wessex Society). In fact I have disputed the neutrality of the History of Devon page, more for what it doesn't say than for what it does (there is a whole section on the Celtic period, which is fine, but the subsequent Saxon settlement of Devon and its incorporation into Wessex is referred to obliquely, if at all, because the Celtic Devon folk deny that it ever happened and dismiss or explain away all evidence that it did). Having said that, I find myself on their side over this. One of the joys of Wikipedia for me is the sheer breadth of its coverage compared to print encyclopedias. I like the idea of having a page on Westcountry Brythonic, even if it is only spoken by a handful of people, purely on the principle that the more information is available on Wikipedia, the better. So I reiterate my vote to keep it. Nick xylas 03:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                      • I didn't say only Devonian nationalists are voting to keep it, I said only Devonian nationalists are learning the conlang. --Angr 06:44, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                        • Although I am not really in favour of the recent edit to the article, to say that the language is one which Biddulph has "made up" or "invented" is a gross distortion of the truth. Although Biddulph's booklet may not satisfy the strict rules of academic acceptability, the author has basically used the comparative method to try to partially reconstruct the language which academics such as McCone and Schmidt have identified as being SW Brittonic, and the parent of Cornish and Breton. As for the concept of Devon Nationalists, I haven't laughed so much in years. Your talents are wasted. Plymguy 14:49 10 March 2005 (edited 14 March 2005)
                          • As Evertype would say, thanks for the insult removing your personal attack. No one can read this exchange without coming to the conclusion that the mutual hatred between Cornish people and Devonians can only be described as nationalism on both sides. --Angr 15:05, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                            • Nationalism is defined as a desire for national independence. There is no such desire in Devon. In fact such aspirations in Cornwall are limited to a tiny fanatical minority, who become bitter and twisted when they are ignored by the Cornish electorate (take a look at some voting statistics). Don’t be fooled into thinking that Cornwall is a hot-bed of nationalism; it isn’t. That is just what the nationalists would like you to believe. Devonians enjoy very cordial relations with the sensible majority of Cornish people. Plymguy 19:32 10 March 2005.
• Comment. I'm worried about establishing a dangerous precedent. The best way to make this article encyclopedic is to rename it "Proto-Southwest-Brittonic" and to discuss what reconstruction work has been done on it by linguists in peer-reviewed publications (e.g. Kenneth Jackson's Language and History in Early Britain, Edinburgh University Press, 1953; Peter Schrijver's Studies in British Celtic Historical Phonology, Rodopi, 1995; as well as any relevant journal articles). But even then it's questionable to what extent the results would warrant a separate encyclopedia article, as opposed to being included in a section of Brythonic languages. If there's an article Proto-Southwest-Brittonic (to the exclusion of Welsh), what's to stop articles on Proto-Anglo-Frisian (to the exclusion of German and Dutch) or Proto-Sorbian (to the exclusion of other West Slavic languages). Articles on protolanguages are fine, but they should be restricted to the major groupings (Proto-Indo-European, Proto-Celtic, Proto-Germanic, Proto-Balto-Slavic, etc.), and information on the smaller groupings should be included either there or in the articles about the smaller families (Brythonic languages, West Germanic languages, West Slavic languages, etc.) --Angr 07:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Rewritten I have rewritten the article in an attempt to save it from deletion. Further editing or expansion is, of course, welcome. Nick xylas 17:21, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • In view of Nick xylas's rewrite, I must retain my delete vote, but now with the reason that the topic of the article is nonnotable. See my comments above on the usefulness of similar articles on Proto-Anglo-Frisian or Proto-Sorbian. --Angr 20:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I have to disagree on this point. I would find an article on Proto-Anglo-Frisian rather interesting, if someone were to write it. likewise, while I think the current title "Westcountry Brythonic" amounts to POV insofar as it reflects only the name of Biddulph's effort, I think it would be acceptable in principle to have an article titled "Proto-Southwestern Brythonic", although in practice such an article would better be incorporated into one on Proto-Brythonic unless it grows too big for those confines. - Mustafaa 22:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment One is not allowed to change the title of an article which is up for deletion, so the title will have to stand for now. If the article is retained, then maybe it could be retitled or incorporated, as you suggest.Nick xylas 01:30, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • That's actually not true; you can change the title of an article which is up for deletion, as long as you also update the title in the deletion debate so that the link isn't lost. Bearcat 05:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Having seen Nick Xylas' revision to the entry I would claim that this now focusses too much on Biddulph's reconstruction rather than the language itself, call that South West Brittonic or Westcountry Brythonic or whatever. Biddulph's work is simply an attempt to reconstruct that language given the available resources, as Cornish was reconstructed (and perhaps why we have atleast three versions of spelling for Cornish), but its existence may help fill out the article. However I will leave the article as is for now to see other comments. I would also comment that this is not Proto-Brythonic as suggested above, as my dictionary suggests that this means the source of or original. The language tree shows that SW Brittonic clearly comes after Brythonic. Needless to say - I retain my keep vote. Dewnans 22.30 8 March 2005
• Comment: What I think is really fascinating about all this is the way that several people have now constructed the strawman that this VfD nomination has anything whatsoever to do with Cornish nationalism, which one user even took great pains to point out was "pathetic". It all makes me think certain people (and I don't mean Evertype) have an underlying agenda here which isn't really about the language at all. Bearcat 23:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment If you look at the fourth (and anonymous) posting above you might see the reason this is raised. There is a cadre of people who see any degree of Celticness east of the Tamar as a threat to their identity. Illogical I know, but there you are Dewnans 07:10 9 March 2005 - minor modification Dewnans 22:00 9 March 2005
    • The anonymous user referred to above is 131.111.8.101 who seems to have a history of vandalising articles, including that on Devon - see comment under that post. Dewnans 03:00 10 Mar 2005
      • Note: User:131.111.8.101 is an IP address belonging to one of the Cambridge University Web Cache Servers and as such is shared by at least several thousand distinct users. --Angr 07:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this article. Merge the relevant facts of the history of southwest Brythonic to the Brythonic languages page. Evertype 01:42, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
  • Comment I think this is Evertypes umpteenth vote. How many is he allowed? And whilst I am in the mood, perhaps he should look at his own wikipedia page and the Wikipedia rules before we get too high and mighty on how encyclopedic wikipedia should be.Dewnans 01:15 9 March 2005. Oops - probably forgot to log on - so have added this addendum Dewnans 01:15 9 March 2005
    • Actually, no, if you read the page carefully, he hasn't voted multiple times; he simply moved his one and only vote down the page. Bearcat 04:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Bearcat - I did check and as it stands he nominated the article (does that count as a vote?), voted (the seventh vote) and then voted above again (the 15th). Dewnans 07.20 7 March 2005
        • Oh for pity's sake. No, no one's votes get counted twice. I have edited the seventh vote so that no one will remain confused. Evertype 12:03, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)
• Comment When Biddulph attempted to reconstruct the common ancestor of Cornish and Breton he looked to the early form of those languages (Early Cornish and Early Breton) along with various other elements (such as placenames) from the area the Breton migration is thought to have come from. Namely the Westcountry or South West Britain. Any deductions that can be made could only be linked to that region rather than Brythonic as it might have been spoken elsewhere. It seems likely that with the Saxon invasion Brythonic would have all but died out in much of eastern England by this time, and clearly Brythonic developed into different languages across Britain (indisputably Welsh, Cumbric, and Cornish). You could only attribute a reconstruction to the South West. As stated in earlier posts a number of linguists such as McCone and Schmidt seem to accept that SW Brittonic wwas a local successor to a more general Brythonic. Further Celtic placenames in the SW region have some features which as far as I know do not match exactly with other areas. For example the 'ock' ending to places such as Dunchideock (Devon), Chideock (Dorset), Hemyock (Devon), and (from a charter of 1065) Tarnuc (Somerset). I therefore reiterate my view that the entry should be retained. Westcountryguy
• Keep That this language existed, in whatever name it was referred to in the past, should be without doubt. That it was spoken deep into England and is a Celtic language, a fact that those posting with ridiculous Celtic nationalist tendancies have issue with, doesn't invalidate its existence. That it is being revived, and learnt, taught and spoken by people in Devon, the Westcountry and I can attest abroad validates the inclusion of an article on it. What needs to be changed if anything, and has been done since this forum began, are the circumstances and uncertainty about its past, but there is a wealth of information about its present. Enzedbrit
  • Note: The above is the user's first contribution to Wikipedia. --Angr 09:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Why do so many people who want to keep this article assume that those who want to delete it have a problem accepting the idea of Celtic languages in England outside Cornwall? This is like the third or fourth time someone has said that. Not one person who has voted delete on this page has denied that England was Celtic-speaking before the Anglo-Saxons arrived, or that Devonshire was Celtic-speaking for a good long time after the Anglo-Saxons arrived. All we deny is that the language described on this page is either (1) attested in manuscripts or inscriptions from the period, or (2) reconstructed in a scholarly way that would stand up to peer review. --Angr 09:37, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • The original article did not claim that the Biddulph attempt at partial reconstruction was definitive, but that the language (under whatever name) did exist, is testified to in numerous academic publications. The reference to Biddulph's publication was added as an aside, to indicate that at least one attempt had been made to achieve a partial reconstruction. The level of uncertainty concerning the accuracy of the Biddulph reconstruction was stressed. What more do you want? Plymguy 11:57 11 March 2005.
    • Oh yeah, we also deny that the conlang described on this page is (3) a sufficiently notable conlang to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. --Angr 10:48, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • By condemning Biddulph’s writings as a ‘conlang’ without ever having read it, demonstrates an appalling lack of academic rigour, which would certainly not have been tolerated in my university department. Please don’t preach to us about maintaining academic standards when those that you apply yourself are demonstrably so low. Plymguy 13:14 11 March 2005 (edited 14 march 2005).
        • I concede I have never read Biddulph's book. No library in Germany owns it (I've looked). I have, however, looked at [6], and if the language described there is the same as the language described in Biddulph's book, it's a conlang. --Angr 08:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Woo hoo! Now it is a revived language with speakers! Evertype 07:48, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)
    • Comment Yes, there are some people attempting to use the language. All the more reason for its inclusion in Wikipedia. Dewnans 05:30 12 march 2005
• Weak cleanup, merge and redirect to a better title. All grammars of incompletely documented languages of antiquity are reconstructions. Since there is precious little documentation as to dialectical variations in Roman Britain, this as it stands is dangerously close to original research, IMHO, or at least likely to not be notable enough research to have an existence very far outside of a minor subtopic of Brythonic. Fire Star 07:02, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Change my vote to delete, as the various Celtic language articles can handle the verifiable scholarly bits of this exercise in ethnic heritage fantasy in one or two sentences. Fire Star 15:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The original aricle was about Westcountry Brythonic, and only mentioned Joseph Biddulph's work in passing and in support. this is not original reseach but rather an article on a recognised branch of Celtic , along with a link to an attempted reconstruction. Nothing suggested other than the Biddulph work was an attempted reconstruction. Why the "flame wars"?? It seems that those (like me) who see our Celtic language in our local history and placenames are being opposed by those who don't see it fitting into their "preconceived view of the world" despite SW Brittonic being accepted in many accredited linguists "family trees". To those people - tough! And for some who flame Biddulph for publishing his own work (alongside a number of other works) I suggest you have a look at publisher "Everson Gunn and Teoranta" (I wonder who that is?) westcountryguy ***Comment It wouldn't be evertype would it?, whose friends look down on this type of thing?? http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-charsets/1999JanMar/0008.html Surely not??!! westcountryguy
  • Another false accusation of being opposed to the idea of Celtic culture in Devon. The article before the rewrite strongly implied that WcB is a slightly attested language (along the lines of Cumbric), which it isn't. The article after the rewrite acknowledges that the language is Biddulph's invention, but fails to establish notability. As for EGT, I have had a look at it and discovered that although Michael Everson edited and/or translated some of the books published there, he wasn't the original author of any of them. So he was never the publisher of his own work. --Angr 13:05, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Nice of you to stick up for Michael. I notice that he has not done so himself. I wonder why? Here is a link which suggests that either Everson has written and published his own work (via EGT) or he is wrongly claiming joint authorship. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1899082018/202-3609234-2806236#product-details Now I don't have an issue with an author publishing his own work, but I don't like hypocrisy. If Michael were to claim here that he never published his own work I will retract. dewnans 05:30 12 March 2005
      • Michael isn't the original author of that book; he just translated into English. --Angr 06:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • From 1991-2001 I was in business with the person who currently owns a small software/publishing company which now goes only by the letters "EGT" because "E" is no longer involved with it. That company published my English translation and adaptation of Roparz Hemon's Grammaire bretonne (see http://www.evertype.com/gram/bg.html). My adaptations to the book were in the phonology section, necessary because the readership was not expected to be francophone, and some additional material about dialect variation which was not in Hemon's original. The book was published by agreement with the French language publishers. I also served as editor of Nicholas Williams' English-Cornish Dictionary, whose quality in terms of modern Celtic lexicography (and indeed of linguistic reconstruction and word-coinage) speaks for itself. I am not "sticking up for myself" here, my dear Dewnans, because I am in Lisbon meeting with Norwegian, German, British, and Portuguese members of MUFI, the Medieval Unicode Font Inituative (see http://www.hit.uib.no/mufi/), working on assembling a collection of about 80 characters used in early Latin printing and redactions of medieval manuscript editions, for proposal for inclusion in the Unicode Standard. In other words, I am happily working away doing my professional scholarly technical work, and am not running around bad-mouthing people on the Wikipedia in a sulk because my hobby hasn't been shown to be of scientific quality or encyclopaedic interest. You know, in earlier centuries it was common for amateur dabblers to publish monographs "attempting" linguistic reconstructions. Linguistics has grown as a science since then, and with all due respect, you have not demonstrated that you have any linguistic training whatsoever, which is why, in my opinion, you and some of your colleagues extend a rather immature rant throughout this discussion, attacking a number of people who have demonstrated linguistic training, experience, and indeed expertise. Your collective arguments haven't shown anything but a milky sort of nationalism. Cultural pride is a fine thing, but science makes it finer. Evertype 12:32, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
          • Speaking as a highly qualified scientist, it is abundantly clear to me that you do not have the faintest idea about scientific methodology. I have been made aware many times that linguists like to think of their discipline as a science, but experience shows that in reality, they do not know the meaning of the word, and most of them (you clearly being one of them) do not possess the required ability in logical deduction to practice anything that could be regarded as a true scientific discipline. Please do not insult science by pretending to be a scientist. Plymguy 13:02 12 March 2005.
            • Well, Mister Highly Qualified Scientist, I am not very impressed by this personal attack. I neither said nor implied that linguistics was a physical experimental science. The study of linguistics is, however, based on observation and rules. That, indeed, is the only way that linguistic reconstruction is even possible, because language drift and change overwhelmingly follow observable and repeatable patterns. It is clear from reading the transcript of this discussion that you enjoy making personal attacks on those with whom you disagree. You don't even make them very well. (I do not have the faintest idea about scientific methodology, according to you, because I used the term "linguistic science".) Go thou, and practice your Science, and leave Celtic linguistics alone, hm? Evertype 11:18, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
              • Let us put what you have said to the test. “The study of linguistics is, however, based on observation and rules.” “language drift and change overwhelmingly follow observable and repeatable patterns.” One of the so-called ‘rules’ (based on a ‘repeatable pattern’), which I have come across, seems to be that for the language of a country (or land) to be replaced by another language, with very few loan words being borrowed from the old language by the new, the population of that land must have been largely replaced by newcomers who speak the (new) language. When linguists applied this rule to England, they concluded that the change from Brythonic to English must have been the result of the Britons being overwhelmingly replaced by Germanic speaking continental invaders/settlers. But when historians say that the available evidence overwhelmingly points to a relatively small Germanic invasion force (percentage-wise), when archaeologists declare that there is massive evidence for large-scale continuity of the native population with relatively low levels of admixture with Germanic migrants, and finally when population geneticists present overwhelming evidence for there having been only a relatively small minority of Germanic migrants in most of what is now England, what response do we get from the linguists? On go the blinkers and the linguists declare that the historians, the archaeologists and the geneticists must all be wrong, because the linguistics ‘rule’ means that the Germanic invaders must have formed a large mjority of the population. A scientist would conclude that, if a ‘rule’ does not fit the observed facts, the rule cannot be a valid one. However, the linguists fail to realise that their ‘rule’ is not a mathematically proven theorem, but merely a supposition, which just happens to have been fairly reliable in the past. Linguists are not scientific enough to abandon ‘rules’, which are proven to be ‘past their sell-by date’. Conclusion – linguistics is NOT a science. Plymguy 15 March 2005.
                • Gracious, if that's what you think linguistics is about, no wonder you have no respect for it. Fortunately your impression of linguistics is utterly wrong. No linguist worthy of the name would ever claim that if language A replaces language B without borrowing words from language B, then speakers of language A must have overwhelmingly replaced the speakers of language B. A real linguist would merely observe the fact that (for example) Old English has virtually no loan words from Brythonic, and leave it to the historians, archaeologists and geneticists to figure out why. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis having long since been debunked, linguists know that the structure of a language and the culture of its speakers are not related in any way, and therefore focus on describing the structures of languages and on devising rules and representations to analyze those structures. The rules Evertype referred to are things like lenition, assimilation of adjacent consonants, syncope of unstressed vowels, and the effects of morphological analogy: rules that refer to language, not to its users. --Angr 18:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                  • That was a fine set of euphemisms, Angr. Evertype 19:44, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
                    • Agreed - an impressive mouthful. However relevance to this discussion?? Reputable linguists acknowledge that Brythonic diverged into Western Brythonic (precursor of Welsh and Cumbric) and South Western Brythonic (precursor of Cornish and Breton). I don't believe that the contributors here (however expert they may be in other fields, and the conversion of writing systems to computer code is another field) are able to discredit McCone, Schmidt et al... An article about one of those languages (in this case South Western Brythonic) does make sense, particularly when somebody (in this case Biddulph) has attempted a reconstruction. The fact that this discussion is so heated demonstrates the topic's interest and that it should not be submerged into another article.Westcountryguy
                      • Neither Evertype nor I am trying to discredit McCone, Schmidt, et al., or even disagree with them. On the contrary, McCone and Schmidt, were they here, would doubtless agree with us that while Southwest Brythonic was a real linguistic entity at some point, and that a scholarly reconstruction of Proto-Brythonic (including Welsh and Cumbric, since excluding Welsh simply excludes too much useful material) is necessary for a greater understanding of Proto-Celtic, and in turn Proto-Indo-European, what Biddulph's booklet covers is not a scholarly reconstruction of anything, but an invented language. By all means, there should be an article on Proto-Brythonic. But the works consulted for that article should be the books by Pedersen, Jackson, Schrijver, and McCone, plus articles in peer-reviewed journals, not the self-published pamphlet by Biddulph. --Angr 12:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • To be fair, Evertype, Dewnans isn't having a rant; he's actually been fairly civil through the whole thing. It's Plymguy who can't refrain from the immature personal attacks. --Angr 12:54, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I wasn't very impressed by Dewnans' snide little insinuations about my integrity with regard to the Breton Grammar. Perhaps "rant" isn't the best word. But the whole discussion is rather tiresome. Evertype 13:00, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)
          • Only in the face of blatent illogical nonsense from both you and Evertype. I notice that you never answer my questions, such as telling us what it was in the original article that was unverifiable. The statement that Biddulph had attempted a reconstruction is perfectly verifiable, as there is a published booklet to prove it. The onus is on you to show that the contents of the article are unverifiable, not that the contents of Biddulphs book are unverifiable. In fact the article author was careful to point out the uncertainties concerning the book. You wanted verification that such a language as SW. Brittonic had been accepted in academic publications as having existed. We supplied this but you were still not satisfied and kept bringing up the red herring of Biddulph's book. If we can find academic literature acknowledging the existence of such a language, I find it astonishing that people who claim to be specialists in the field claim to have never heard of it. How about cutting out the smart talk and pompous 'we know best' remarks and giving us some answers. Then I would have no reason to question your academic abilities. I would even be prepared to forget that you started the pettiness by treating Dewnans as if he was an academic minnow to be merely brushed aside. Is it a deal? Plymguy 13:49 12 March 2005 (edited 14 March 2005).
            • I have said numerous times on this page that since Nick xylas's rewrite, the article is no longer unverifiable, but that the topic of the article is nonnotable. That is a separate but equally valid criterion for deletion. --Angr 14:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
              • Angr, is it not logical therefore that the present proposal for deletion can no longer be valid, as it was lodged on the grounds that the content of the article was unverifiable. If you are saying that after the rewrite by Nick xylas, this is not the case, then surely by definition your vote for deletion on that basis cannot be valid. It is no good claiming that there are now other reasons for deletion, as these reasons were not stipulated at the start of this call for deletion exercise. To continue would be equivalent to trying someone for crime ‘A’, and half way through the trial for the prosecuting council to declare that they would be withdrawing the charges, but that the trial should be continued under the pretext of a different charge alleging crime ‘B’. I would therefore submit that the current call for deletion should be withdrawn and another new one instituted in its place . However, I would request that you postpone any new call for deletion for at least a week, as I have an idea for a complete rewrite of the article, which I think may alleviate your main objections. Incidentally, you do realise that the accusation of being ‘nonnotable’ must (by definition) be highly subjective, and therefore very difficult to prove. Plymguy 16:44 12 March 2005.
                • Your understanding of VFD is incorrect. Please read Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion. This is a discussion of whether an article should be deleted, and the initial nomination does not impose any sorts of narrow boundaries upon that discussion in the way that you claim. Uncle G 23:34, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)
                  • Then what is the point of the initial statement of the reason for deletion? Plymguy 07:10 14 March 2005.
                    • The deletion policy page actually states "The page will also remain if it has been improved enough since the initial listing that the reason for the listing no longer applies. This requires a reason to be given initially when requesting that a page be deleted.". This seems to be the case here. It also gives lack of notability as a reason for redirection and merging rather than deletion.Nick xylas 01:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Please tell us where, in the revised version of the article, it states that the language is Biddulph's 'invention'. This is yet another example of your questionable standard of scholarship. Plymguy 13:25 11 March 2005 (edited 14 March 2005).
  • Westcountry Brythonic (or Old Devonian) is the name given by linguist Joseph Biddulph to an attempted reconstruction of the language spoken in the South-Western British Isles during the period between the Roman withdrawal and Anglo-Saxon settlement of the area. That makes it pretty clear whose attempt it is. The only inaccuracy in the sentence is the claim that Joseph Biddulph is a linguist. (Oh, and my university and I thank you for the insult removing your personal attack.) --Angr 14:52, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Isn't that rather petty. Biddulph is a linguist - even if you and Sr Everson don't like him. In fact he appears as a linguist/publisher on the same list as Michael Everson http://linguistlist.org/other-publishers.html. In any event his effort at an attempted reconstruction, whether accurate or not, does not invalidate the fact that Westcountry Brythonic (or SW Brittonic) existed and is included in a number of "attested" Celtic language family trees Dewnans05:30 12 March 2005
      • He is listed as a "Grass-root publisher of over 100 language descriptions and curiosa, mainly on African languages but in principle covering the whole world." Being a publisher of language descriptions is not the same thing as being a linguist. --Angr 06:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • So you now presume to know Biddulph's academic credentials. The above description is incomplete, as it fails to mention that he is also an author of booklets on a number of languages. Plymguy 07:21 12 March 2005.
          • Yes, and at least the one I have, Native African Alphabets of Modern Times, which is itself undated and without a proper title page, is a 32-page booklet typewritten with hand-drawn alphabet charts. I am currently working on encoding the Vai script in Unicode, and I assure you that the errors evident in Biddulph's booklet are dangerously incorrect, at least for anyone who wanted to use the information to do something like encode the Vai syllabary in Unicode. My take on it is that Biddulph is not more than an enthusiastic amateur. Evertype 11:18, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
    • The words "attempted reconstruction" do not mean the same as "invention". You appear to have difficulty understanding simple words in the English language, so how you can claim to be a linguist is beyond me. At least Joseph Biddulph is enough of a linguist to comprehend the definitions of simple words. Plymguy 00:12 12 March 2005 (edited 14 March 2005).
      • You appear to have difficulty recognizing a euphemism when you see one. --Angr 06:51, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I have no difficulty in recognising a euphemism, but you obviously have great difficulty in recognising when one was intended by the writer. Perhaps Nick would care to comment on whether his words were intended as a euphemism, or whether your interpretation of them was incorrect. Plymguy 07:28 12 March 2005 (edited 14 March 2005).
          • Well, I didn't intend it as a euphemism, to me an attempted reconstruction is not the same thing as an invention, but that doesn't mean I endorse the "deranged mind" comment.Nick xylas 16:22, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
            • Thank you for that Nick. I did not expect you to endorse my comment, but I must say in all honesty, that it is beyond my comprehension how anyone using logical thought processes could possibly mistake what you said for a euphemism. Incidentally, I hope you don't mind, but I intend to carry out a major revision of the article in the next few days, in order to render the article more acceptable to our critics. Plymguy 17:02 12 March 2005.
              • I don't mind at all. As I said at the time, I welcome further revision, my rewrite was only intended as a starting point to deal with some of the criticisms of the original article. I am probably not the best person to do the edit, since I haven't even read Biddulph's book (though I am somewhat familiar with its contents through comments on the Celtic Devon forum and Robert Craig's review of it in the Wessex Society newsletter), but nobody else seemed willing to step up to the plate, as most people here wanted to delete it rather than rewrite it.Nick xylas 20:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
                • I suspect that Robert Craig'e credentials would be questioned here and his review of Biddulph's work declared not to be academically rigorous enough to be accepted. It seems to be a case of 'your views don't count, our views do'. Plymguy 07:30 14 March 2005.
                  • As a recognized expert in the world's writing systems I have no difficulty whatsoever in stating unequivocably that Native African Alphabets of Modern Times is an example of poor secondary scholarship, riddled with error. Evertype 11:18, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

Note to all: It was getting impossible to read this article, so I have gone through it and tried to reorder its hierarchy by adding asterisks in appropriate places to force a better nesting of the comments. I have also made four new comments today. Evertype 11:18, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

• Comment What a number of us consider to be irritating, unprofessional, unscientific and highly illogical, are the arguments put forward by the deletion nominator and his backers. The nominator asserts that the information in the article is unverifiable. He was referring to the article as it was prior to being edited. His evidence for this assertion was that “There is no evidence whatsoever that this language existed.” Clearly this is not the case, as there is a considerable weight of evidence in academic publications (by McCone, Schmidt, Jackson, etc) that such a language (SW Brittonic) did exist and was the common speech of the Dark Age realm of Dumnonia and probably the neighbouring areas in South West Britain. The second assertion is that “It’s a conlang.” Clearly a language, which was spoken at some time in the historical past, could not have been a ‘conlang’, i.e. a constructed language. The nominator counters by saying that he was referring to Biddulph’s attempted partial reconstruction as a conlang, as it was not performed in a ‘scholarly’ way. For a start, this is irrelevant, as Biddulph’s attempted partial reconstruction was not the primary subject of the original article, although the fact that Biddulph had attempted a reconstruction (in itself verifiable) was mentioned. Even though the attempted reconstruction by Biddulph was not the main subject of the article, it was referred to, so it is deserving of further examination. To refer to it as a ‘conlang’ would be inaccurate. A conlang is a constructed language, examples of which would include Esperanto, Sindarin, Quenya and Klingon. South West Brittonic (referred to as ‘West Country Brythonic’ by Biddulph) was the parent language of Cornish and Breton, so one would expect a reconstruction of the language to be largely comprehensible to anyone familiar with both daughter languages, and for such a person to be able to recognise that the reconstruction contained common elements from both of those languages. One would also expect a Welsh speaker to be able to understand the language to a certain extent. This has been found to be so with Biddulph’s attempted partial reconstruction. On the other hand, we would not expect speakers of Cornish, Breton or Welsh to be able to understand a constructed language (conlang) such as Esperanto or Sindarin unless they had specifically studied them. Let us examine the main criticism of Biddulph’s attempted partial reconstruction, i.e. that it is “not scholarly’. The term ‘scholarly’ is at best relative and at worst vague. If two scholars of equal academic repute set out to reconstruct an extinct language, they would (could) not end up with exactly the same reconstruction. Although Biddulph’s attempt is undoubtedly not as ‘scholarly’ as other reconstructions have been, it is still recognisable as being reconstructive in nature, and certainly not constructive (a conlang). Plymguy 12:24 17 March 2005.
  • This certainly is tiresome. The thing called "Westcountry Brythonic" is Biddulph's "reconstruction" and having seen how he botched African writing systems, is completely uninteresting and "unnotable" with regard to this encyclopedia. What is "unverifiable" is that "Westcountry Brythonic" per se existed. You posit that it "is" the same language as Southwest Brythonic, and that is completely unverifiable, as there are NO Southwest Brythonic texts, and indeed, no real linguist has proposed its reconstruction. As for the rest, Angr has summed it up already: Neither Evertype nor I am trying to discredit McCone, Schmidt, et al., or even disagree with them. On the contrary, McCone and Schmidt, were they here, would doubtless agree with us that while Southwest Brythonic was a real linguistic entity at some point, and that a scholarly reconstruction of Proto-Brythonic (including Welsh and Cumbric, since excluding Welsh simply excludes too much useful material) is necessary for a greater understanding of Proto-Celtic, and in turn Proto-Indo-European, what Biddulph's booklet covers is not a scholarly reconstruction of anything, but an invented language. By all means, there should be an article on Proto-Brythonic. But the works consulted for that article should be the books by Pedersen, Jackson, Schrijver, and McCone, plus articles in peer-reviewed journals, not the self-published pamphlet by Biddulph. Evertype 20:06, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
    • Just because “no real linguist has proposed its reconstruction”, does not mean that South West Brythonic (Brittonic, British, etc) never existed. Why would McCone, Schmidt, Jackson, Sims-Williams, Snyder, etc refer to a language which never existed? Indeed Jackson (1953) and Sims-Williams (1990) identified major phonological changes occurring at the start of the Dark Ages, which differentiated South Western Brittonic from Western Brittonic. This same differentiation is also referred to by Biddulph, and the fact that he named his attempted partial reconstruction “Westcountry Brythonic”, does not mean that the language he was attempting to reconstruct was not the same as SW Brittonic. In Britain, the terms ‘South West’ and ‘Westcountry’ are usually taken to be synonymous in a geographical sense. The fact that you can criticise Biddulph’s book about African writing systems, has no bearing whatsoever on the present topic. The fact remains that you have not read “A Handbook of Westcountry Brythonic”, so (by definition) you are not qualified to condemn it. I have shown that there is a clear difference between an attempted partial reconstruction and a constructed language (conlang), and yet you still refer to Biddulph’s attempt as a ‘conlang’, without seeming to be able to present any logical case for this conclusion. In fact I have yet to discover any logical argument at all in what you and your backers have written so far, which seems to consist merely of restating the same dogma over and over again. I am sure that if Biddulph had claimed that his book outlined his own contructed language (conlang), the criticisms would have come flooding in that it was clearly not his invention at all, because it consisted almost entirely of elements, which could by identified as being common to Cornish and Breton. The other criticism aimed at SW Brittonic is that it is non-notable. This, of course, is a matter of personal opinion, and one which is obviously not shared by others, such as Snyder and other historians, who clearly feel that it was of sufficient ‘notability’ to include in their texts. Plymguy 08:25 19 March 2005.
      • I haven't called it a "conlang" for days. But guess what? It's a conlang! THIS ARTICLE is not about Southwest Brythonic. It's about Biddulph's reconstruction, Westcountry Brythonic, which, apparently, and amazingly, is being learnt by enthusiasts. It is an unattested language, and as such, it's just as much a conlang as Klingon is. Southwest Brythonic, while it may be a node described by genuine Celticists, is not something that is attested enough to merit its own article. As has been suggested on a number of occassions, an article about Proto-Brythonic could deal with this issue. Evertype 00:38, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
        • Comment Even if it is as much a Conlang as Klingon or Quenya, those languages each have a page on Wikipedia. The fact that it is being learned by enthusiasts may be "amazing" to you, but it rather defies the "not notable" tag that you have tried to stick on it.Nick xylas 00:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Comment I haven't noticed that you, as the nominator, have withdrawn the description "conlang", so as far as I am concerned that is what you have called it. The fact that you have not done so for days is of no consequence. Therefore, the onus is on you to give definitive reasons as to why it is a conlang. However, now it has suddenly become "Biddulph's reconstruction", so apparently you can't make up your mind. I still don't see anything that could be described as logical thought in either your nomination or subsequent comments. Plymguy 01:13 20 March 2005.
• Keep I have read both Biddulph's pamphlet and related websites; and while I am not a professional linguist specialising in the Brythonic languages, I do have more than a nodding acquaintance with them and their history (being a native Welsh-speaker myself)- it seems to me that Biddulph's reconstruction is deeply flawed and highly implausible for the time-period he suggests. However, that is not really the issue here. As was said above, nobody disputes that there was a Brythonic language spoken in Devon and Dorset before the arrival of the Saxons; the question seems to be whether Biddulph's "Westcounrty Brythonic" is that language- which in my opinion it is not. However, since a few people are trying to "revive" the language, it is a real-world phenomenon- a real language per se and worthy of inclusion. On the other hand, I think the article should be renamed and tidied up, so people aren't misled into thinking that Biddulph's language is the accepted reconstruction of South-West Brythonic. Dewrad 13:47, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • This article is not about Southwest Brythonic. What facts are in it should be merged into Brythonic languages or put into Proto-Brythonic. Biddulph and his conlang have no place in the Wikipedia. Evertype 00:38, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
    • The article IS about South-West Brythonic. I was the original author and it was drafted to be the Celtic language of teh Westcountry and the precursor to Cornish. I called it Westcountry Brythonic, and perhaps that name could be changed (but I note that authors have called this language a variety of names). The reference to Biddulph's reconstruction was mentioned only as point of interest, and I believe that is what it should still be. Dewnans 04:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • If as the original author you intended the article to be about the proto-language Southwest Brythonic, you should have used books like those by Pedersen (or the abridged translation by Lewis if you don't read German), Jackson, Schrijver, and McCone to inform the article. There should have been no mention of Biddulph and no link to [7]. The article today is about Biddulph's "Old Devonian", not about Proto-Southwest Brythonic, whether that was the original intention or not. --Angr 13:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment withdrawn by userNick xylas 01:00, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I do not read this as consensus. The overwhelming majority of "keepers" are first-time this-topic-only participants in the Wikipedia. They have made personal attacks on Wikipedians who do know something about linguistics and Celtic taxonomy. As I said, this article is not about Southwest Brythonic. What facts are in it should be merged into Brythonic languages or put into Proto-Brythonic. Biddulph and his conlang have no place in the Wikipedia. Evertype 12:08, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  • Summing up the votes, I make it 10 votes to delete, from 9 established Wikipedia users (Megan1967, Bearcat, Angr, Arwel, Jayjg, Mustafaa, Radiant!, Evertype, Fire Star) and 1 anonymous user whose IP address is shared by thousands of Cambridge University students (131.111.8.101), versus 89 votes to keep, from 23 well established Wikipedia users (Dewnans, Nick xylas, QuartierLatin1968), 1 slightly established Wikipedia user (203.79.109.142, who had made exactly one major edit before voting here), and 5 people who only joined Wikipedia for the purpose of voting to keep this article (Plymguy, westcountryguy, Exevalleyboy, Enzedbrit, Dewrad). The similarity in construction of the first three names ("place in southwestern England" + "guy/boy") makes me wonder whether there may some sock-puppetry going on. --Angr 15:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) (updated 13:30, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC))
    • Indeed, you are right, which is why I have withdrawn my original count.Nick xylas 21:18, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • You obviously haven't done your research properly, or you would have realised that there is no sock-puppetry going on. The names we have used are merely those which we have also used in other forums. Although you claim to know something about linguistics and Celtic taxonomy, it is strange that you appear to be confused about the definition of 'conlang' and apparently had never come across 'SW Brittonic' until we drew your attention to it. This is not at all impressive from self professed linguists specialising in Celtic languages and their origins. Plymguy 16:32 20 March 2005.
      • Gosh, let me think. I read Indo-European Linguistics at UCLA (including Middle Welsh), have a diploma in Old Irish language and literature from University College Dublin, translated Hemon's Grammaire bretonne into English, edited and typeset a 485-page English-Cornish dictionary, and am typesetting and preparing the index verborum of a Middle Cornish Arthurian play. And I speak Irish on a daily basis. Could I possibly know anything about Celtic linguistics? I proposed the deletion of "Westcountry Brythonic" because it's a fiction; it's described as a language "reconstructed" in a short booklet by an author of dubious quality. That makes it a conlang, particularly as some enthusiasts are even learning it. "Southwest Brythonic" may not be a fiction, but it is not "Westcountry Brythonic" and if there is anything to say about it, it belongs in Brythonic languages or put into Proto-Brythonic. And as for Plymguy and the rest of them and their personal attacks: Go learn Cornish or Welsh. Both are interesting, dynamic, and real languages that can bring some joy into your lives. Evertype 17:05, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
        • I am sure that we are all impressed by your Curriculum Vitae, but not at all impressed by you apparent inability to answer the question that was asked, i.e. why it was that you knew nothing about SW Brittonic, despite being a self-professed Celtic linguist. Also, your apparent ability to be able to produce a ‘scholarly(?)’ condemnation of a book that you have not even read (based, it seems, purely on your familiarity with another of the author’s books) beggars belief, and is certainly not the standard of scholarship that one might expect from someone with your CV. As for the subject matter of Biddulph’s book being a ‘conlang’, I am sure that if Buddulph had presented it as being such, his claim would have been heavily criticised by Celtic linguists, who would have protested that it was not a constructed language because it consisted entirely of common elements from early Cornish and early Breton. One may criticise the standard of Biddulph’s attempted partial reconstruction (after one has read it), but to deny that it is an attempted reconstruction and refer to it as a ‘conlang’, is to distort the meanings of those two categories. Plymguy 12:40 21 March 2005.
          • Where did you get this remarkable idea that Evertype and I hadn't heard of SW Brittonic before we found this page? Of course we had heard of it -- as the hypothetical ancestor language to Cornish and Breton, which is unattested. I first heard of it when I read Jackson's Language and History in Early Britain at least 15 years ago. Evertype is older than me, so he probably heard of it even longer ago than that. Since Biddulph's book is unavailable, I base my claim that it is a conlang on the language presented at [8], which I assume is the same as the language in the book. No Celtic linguist would argue with the claim that that is a Brythonic-based conlang, much as Interlingua is a Romance-based conlang. But every Celtic linguist would disagree with the claim that that language is a valid reconstruction of SW Brittonic, just as every Romance linguist would disagree with the claim that Interlingua is a valid reconstruction of Proto-Romance. If learning Old Devonian makes you happy, go right ahead. Just please don't be fooled into believing that there is any evidence that the Dumnonii actually spoke that way. --Angr 13:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment Am I to assume from Angr's comment above that the votes of "established" Wikipedians are worth more than those who have only just created an account? I do however agree with Evertype that this is closer to a conlang than a scholarly reconstruction, but I don't really see that as reason to delete the article. After all, we have articles on Brithenig, Wenedyk, Verdurian and Breathanach- none of which are really all that notable outside the conlanging community (and I dare say a fair few even within that community haven't heard of all of them). Biddulph may not present his work as a conlang, but it does bear considerable resemblence to one. Dewrad 18:10, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it's true that the votes of established Wikipedians are worth more than those of people whose first edit was to vote on whether or not to delete a certain article. Thanks for pointing out those other conlangs, by the way; I've been working on my own equivalent of Brithenig off and on for a few years now, and never knew someone else had had the idea and had a website about it! --Angr 18:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Dewrad - What makes you consider that Biddulph's attempted partial reconstruction looks like a 'conlang'? Surely a conlang would not contain word elements which were common to early Cornish and early Breton. Biddulph's attempted reconstruction clearly does contain such elements, so as far as I can see, it does not qualify as a conlang. I would not expect it to look too much like Welsh, as Cornish and Breton were significantly different from Welsh by the post-Roman period. Plymguy 19:18 20 March 2005.
• Keep (but preferably rename). Sorry to be entering the discussion so tardively (how these matters arouse people's emotions!) but I've only just got back from holiday. A Brythonic language was spoken in what we now call the Westcountry – that much is certain – we might as well allow an article on it. On the other hand, I've always thought the name 'Westcountry Brythonic' was a little silly. Old Devonian or even Old Dumnonian (a term that could also include primitive Cornish) seem better names to me. Anybody keeping count of the score here? QuartierLatin1968 02:31, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The current score is "Delete (and/or merge)" 10-9 "Keep (and or rename)". IMHO this is hardly a consensus in support of deletion, whatever weight you attribute to new contributors. I also agree that the article might be better if renamed. Dewnans 04:57, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • If there is anything relevant about Southwest Brythonic in this article, those facts should be merged into Brythonic languages or put into Proto-Brythonic. And there had better by-the-gods be some actual substance to it, such as citations by real Celtic linguists. Evertype 17:40, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
      • Brythonic languages probably has most of the salvageable historical info already. We could rename and add some biography to this article as Joseph Biddulph perhaps. Fire Star 05:19, 22 Mar 2005 (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.

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)

• • An alternative might be to move it to the non-POV title Words of Brythonic origin in Irish (analogous to Words of Algonquian origin. - Mustafaa 22:21, 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.

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 delete, but redirected to be safe. ugen64 00:56, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Asexualisation

Is this article for real? I think it might be but thought vfd it just in case.

• This article was VfD'd by an anon in November, who created this VfD subpage but forgot to actually put it on VfD. It looks like it's probably a joke, so I'm relisting it. Goplat 16:26, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Dubious orphan. -- Infrogmation 19:32, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a hoax. I would have speedied it, but it's one of those undeletable things. (PS: finding the edit link with those ugly boxes isn't easy.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:22, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• The term was used in the first half of the 20th century as a synonmyn for what we now call sterilization ("sterilization without asexualization" meant sterilization by means of vasectomy rather than castration). Perhaps a redirect to Sterilization (surgical procedure)? Or just a delete (I somehow doubt many people from 1930 are really going to be searching Wikipedia and wondering why this term doesn't exist). Doesn't matter to me, just thought I'd note it. --Fastfission 06:34, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• I would replace with the proper definition and keep the article --Ojmorales0002 12:29, 16 Mar 2005 (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.

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 delete. ugen64 00:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RIA / RIAfunk

Non notable. What the hell is an "air guitar band" anyway? sjorford →•← 18:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I don't know whether this band (or the 'genre') is notable or not, but I do recall that Los Angeles hosted the First National Air Guitar Championship (or something similar) in November 2002. They really did jump around on stage pretending to play a guitar in sync to the rock that was being played. I don't know if it was ever followed by a Second National..., and I don't know how notable this is. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 19:18, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see that our own article on Air guitar mentions organized contests in Finland, Australia and the US. So yes, the genre is apparently notable. I cannot however comment on the band's notability. -- Brhaspati (^talk_contribs) 19:23, 2005 Mar 5 (UTC)
• Delete. I suppose there can be such a thing as a notable air band, but I don't see evidence that this one is. The only relevent hits I found for RIA + "air band" are the groups own homepages. The only link to the article is from theRIA, added by the creator of the article. Non notable, likely vanity. -- Infrogmation 19:40, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I found no evidence of notability. - Jeltz talk 21:03, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable, band vanity. Megan1967 01:55, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: How is this band vanity? I see no attempt at self promotion. The information is clearly presented in a factual manner, and by visiting their website you will see that they do not even make a profit from their work. There are no ads or gimmicks, anything they have created is available for free download. --Koopatroopa64 08:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I have edited this entry in order to hopefully address these issues, though I was not the one who originally created it. It seems as if the impression was made that "RIA" was a well-known, serious air band. However, they are more of an underground group and are more a creative group in general than an actual air band.--Koopatroopa64 09:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: An edit to the article in question and this vote are so far the only edits by this user. -- Infrogmation
    • Response: Rather than accuse everyone who votes to keep this article of being the same person, being such a significant Wikipedia contributor as your user information states, why don't you acknowledge common courtesy and offer some suggestions on how this article can be improved upon? No one has stated that they refuse to edit the article in order to improve upon it. Just because YOU have not heard of this group, although it has already been repeatedly, CLEARLY stated that this is a relatively SMALL group, does not mean that they do not merit themselves an entry. --Koopatroopa64 08:58, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The band documents most of its exploits on its own website, but the work of the individual members can be found in various mediums. The band members have never taken themselves too seriously and the article was not an example of "band vanity." The person who made the original article wasn't even a member of the band, but a fan. If someone liked the band enough to write the article, whether or not they're as well known as someone like Brittany Spears, then the article should stay up. --GroggyFroggyPoet 18:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Above is user's first/so far only edit. -- Infrogmation 20:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. The band may not play instruments but that doesn't mean they don't deserve an article. They work hard and have plenty of fans. Who are you to judge?--CrusaderOfZrage 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Above is user's first/so far only edit. -- Infrogmation
    • Response: Obviously enough people are familiar with this group to step forward and create an account to defend it. Accusing them of being the same person in order to make your own votes for deletion seem more substantiated is disrespectful. You are a frequent Wikipedia user, why do you not offer some suggestions on what can be done to improve the article? I am sure that either I or another user will step forward to edit it. --Koopatroopa64 09:15, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. All I'm gonna say is if you're concerned about a joke article, this isn't one. If you're concerned about incorrect facts, there aren't any in the article. They may not be well-known, but they've more than earned a wikipedia article. This is legitimate, so why take it down? --I Love Ponies 19:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Above vote is thus far user's only contribution to Wikipedia. -- Infrogmation 20:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. --Carnildo 22:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity, unverifiable. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:40, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • Note: Please explain what exactly is unverifiable about this entry. It is already stated that they are a small group and thus not much information is available on the internet regarding them, aside from their homepage. Everything stated about the band is factual, and can be verified through five years of entries on their website. --Koopatroopa64 08:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep.I for one have been to an air guitar contest, and have taken part in one. Although, my voice may not be heard above all others, I can tell you that nothing in this article has been falsified, and it does keep with the wiki's spirit of neutrality. The article states that RIA says that theyy are the greatest air band in the world. Do they? Yes the do, it is a fact. The genre is real, this is a fact. I do not see the problem that has arised, this isn't another Solog, where it is BLATENTLY one-sided. ---GearType2

  The above was posted by User:69.232.210.78 --Carnildo 05:50, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Not notable, sock puppet supported. DaveTheRed 07:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What Dave said. Unravel all sockpuppets! Wave bye-bye! Just to make it official: Delete. - Lucky 6.9 08:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• What sockpuppets? Stop throwing up red herrings, if you would take a look at the article you would see there is nothing wrong with it. My vote still stands as keep.---GearType2
  • Ooh, hosiery with an attitude! I promise to stop "throwing up red herrings" if you promise to just stop throwing up. Deal? - Lucky 6.9 17:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Isn't there a section on the wikipedia page about "not biting newcomers?" I didn't know what a sock puppet was, I had to look it up. GearType2 just didn't know what it was and didn't realize it was a real term. And as for Koopatroopa64's comment about multiple people signing up cause they felt strongly about the entry cause they support the band, I'll be the first to admit that's the whole reason I made an account. Tell me how to prove it and I will. I gotta tell you, this whole hostility thing between the people who say delete and the people who say keep is putting a bad taste in my mouth about wikipedia. I mean, I appreciate the fact that anyone can edit the entries and that you try to keep it legitimate, but there's no need to attack the people who are defending the article. We want the article to stay up and we're willing to fix it so that it can, we just need to know specific stuff to work on. And Lucky 6.9, I'm sorry if it seems like I'm attacking you because I'm not, I just had to pick one place to post this. This is directed at everyone on both sides of the discussion. I'm also sorry this post is so long. We're just fans who want to see this work out for everyone. Ok,I forgot to sign and add a time stamp so if anyone noticed that, I'm doing it now.--I Love Ponies 02:41, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Band vanity. Delete. Ban sockpuppets. --Slowking Man 08:20, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • If you wish to keep the information available online, may I suggest either Wikinerds or Everything2? Wikinerds accepts anything and everything. Since it's only a fraction of the size of Wikipedia, your message is more likely to get seen. The info stays, it's more visible...everybody wins. BTW, I did not bite a newcomer. I responded in kind to an attack by a perceived sockpuppet. - Lucky 6.9 04:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the suggestion about the other site, but it seems to me that the author would rather keep his/her article here if possible. I mean, that's probably why people are trying so hard to find out what to do to keep it up: we feel strongly about it and it means a lot to us to keep it here. Personally, if I wrote an article I'd rather have it on wikipedia - its more...I don't know, prestigious maybe? Not quite the word I want, but it'll work. Point is, if we can't save the article I suppose moving it'll do, but we all want it here. Why have a cheeseburger when you can eat steak? --I Love Ponies 06:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • To keep an article, show how it is important or notable, for example by pointing to web or print sources discussing the topic. Get other established Wikipedians to support keeping the article and improving it. Write according to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Hope this helps! For specifics relating to bands, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 06:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the information. Considering they have not pursued music seriously career-wise, and the two CDs they released were not under any label, how should this be addressed in the article? Should it be moved to another category? Also, I found another external link for them- they attended a few Dance Dance Revolution tournaments in Florida from 2001-2002, the site I found lists them as a team in Florida and links to their site. Should this be noted in the article as well? --Koopatroopa64 18:26, 11 Mar 2005 (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.

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 wasDELETE. dbenbenn | talk 20:19, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] F11

Delete The F11 function key does not worth as a separate article. Information here is not that important: why only compare web browsers?! However, if needed, these can be merged back to the browsers' article page, e.g. Criticisms of Mozilla Firefox. --Minghong 18:49, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete Non-enyclopedic, certainly doesn't merit its own article. BTfromLA 19:54, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This article is discriminatory against those who support the F3 key. ;-) 23skidoo 21:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Alt-F4 it. errr, Delete. Tygar 01:54, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Creator needs to keep in mind that any function key can be assigned to perform any function in any piece of software; that's why it's called a function key. Bearcat 04:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Control-alt-Delete. DaveTheRed 04:05, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need separate articles for keys on keyboards. — JIP | Talk 07:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Shift-Delete. Are you sure you want to delete 'F11'? Click Yes. --Plek 11:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. --Ryan! | Talk 11:43, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Ctrl-Alt-(Nose on F11 Key)-Delete. --BM 14:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Function key and redirect The Function key article should be exbanded with standard uses of function keys. F3 currently only talks about a hentai film and F1 is unsurprisingly a redirect to Formula One, and I'd think both F1 and F3 are more widely used than F11. Certainly future potential for an independent encyclopediac article, but I think until the other function keys catch up, we should merge.--cfp 18:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Should have better naming then, e.g. "F1 (function key)". F* is just a too common name, e.g. "F4" refers to a group of artist in Taiwan [9]. --Minghong 20:40, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yeah eventually, but for now they'd all be better off in the Function Key article I think. --cfp 23:41, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. since a good article about F11 cant be written RustyCale 22:38, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• As a Mac OS user, I'd first press Command-Delete to move it to the trash folder (wait, it's alreay here...), then press Command-Shift-Delete to finally get rid of it. Besides, F11 on a Mac (by default, anyways) does something completely different... kelvSYC 03:44, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• keepAdeimantus 08:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) Account with public password, vote stricken. --Michael Snow 22:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or merge keys found on tens of millions of PCs. Expand to cover usage in different applications, and what Mac F11 keys do. Kappa 09:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Function key -SCEhardt 21:07, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep there _must_ be separate articles for keyboard keys. Grue 16:58, 13 Mar 2005 (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.