Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashaka dialect

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The editors who have examined the sources have found them lacking in the light of WP:V. I am not able to understand the arguments advanced in the defense of the article, as they seem to pertain mostly to other languages and general issues in African linguistics, rather than to this article.  Sandstein  09:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mashaka dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Potentially fails WP:GNG language or dialect wise. Perhaps I am incorrect, but, English language references weren't impressive. Perhaps someone else can prove me wrong! SarahStierch (talk) 09:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sadly, per nom. I see what these editors are trying to do here, but this one is not ready for the articlespace yet. I would love to go find sources and notability, but I'm swamped. So, I have to !vote delete for now. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am still learning to understand what Wikipedia really is and what it stands for. However, SarahStierch (talk) is dealing with technicalities here, without giving references to what she knows about Mashaka dialect, whereas the article even gives the ampirical evidence of the chornology of this dialect, perhaps I would have answered based on what she knows. Understood, Wikipedia does not deal with original research, but how do you deal with southeast Angola languages which are under-researched apart from Chokwe and Lunda, without original research? I believe ^[1], is a reliable source, with copies of this book found in at least two Universities in UK. This type of contest, is what has brought about promotion of Ngangela language whis is nothing but "one of the ethnographic classification categories invented during colonial times in a series of African countries which do not correspond to one people held together by a common social identity", at the expence of Mbunda language which is the original group ^[2]. Therefore I cannot answer based on your technicalities, I hope someone who understands them will pick it from here. Libingi (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libingi (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as possible hoax or mis-naming. It's not mentioned in http://www.ethnologue.com/ which is the premier catalog of minority, endangered and extinct languages. If the appropriate entry can be found from there, ping my talk page and I'll have another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Possible hoax or mis-naming" arguement is speculation without convincing references. The http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=mck has its own challenges on unresearched ethnic groups in southeast Angola, as seen in coding separation of Mbunda of Kwilu/Kasai Congo DRC (Bandundu) and the rest of Angola, Namibia and Zambia, compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bunda_people. These are research challenges that should be positively followed than speculate. "Suggestion", why not establish contacts with southeast Angola authorities for confirmation of the dialect. http://www.ethnologue.com/ethno_docs/introduction.asp#alt_names check paragraph two under dialects. Libingi (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't be doing that because it would be WP:OR which is explicitly banned on wikipedia. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring research references, whether original, without giving relevant references results in feeding on speculation, and challenges certain policies. Libingi (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.