Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qahveh Khaneh Sign Language

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 keep. I see no consensus to delete here, someone has suggested a merge, that discussion can take place on article talk. Closing this now. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 10:17, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qahveh Khaneh Sign Language

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A not clearly notable sign language variant of unclear origins. Until recently, see here, the article said the language was specific to a village in Iranian Azerbaijan. After a nomination for speedy deletion, which was dismissed by the page's creator in violation of the template's instructions, the article now gives an entirely different explanation based on coffee houses in Tehran. Either way, the language has clearly never attained sufficient notability to acquire its own ISO_639-3 code. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:TROLL. Nominator tagged it for deletion because it had "no sources", despite it having a RS. I deleted the tag as an error, and added a second source. Nominator tagged it again for deletion for having "no sources". At this point the nominator seems to simply be trolling.

There were (quite egregious) errors in the article that I've now corrected. If the nominator had bothered to check the source they claimed didn't exist, they would've caught the errors themself.

Anyway, all languages are notable, so that's no reason to delete. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not quite sure how, as a former administrator, you think you can act so naive. The article did not have a source when I nominated it for speedy deletion, as everyone can see from the page's history. You also clearly did not remove the deletion template 'accidentally', because you did it twice, and commented on it. The only mystery is: why all the smoke and mirrors over a stub? Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the first source you are referring to is the external link in the infobox to the 'Glottolog' website where the language is briefly mentioned by name in a directory-like format, this provided no information and conveyed no obvious notability. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Glottolog is a source and even a RS. They even give their source, which they evaluate as a RS. Yet you are still claiming the article "did not have a source". — kwami (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to wrap up the speedy deletion retrospective portion of this discussion: Iskandar323, the page met none of the criteria for speedy deletion, and none of the reasons you included in the tag justify speedy deletion. For example, at WP:Criteria for speedy deletion, you'll find no criterion for deleting a language article on account of giving no ISO code. Largoplazo (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To editor AlbertBickford: Perhaps you may wish to comment given your recent input on this article's talk page. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This article was improperly tagged with a speedy deletion tag that claimed it was unsourced, despite its clear Glottolog citation, and this nomination seems to be similarly mistaken about the article and its subject. As a significant contributor to the colloquial register of a national sign language (Persian) and its definitive attestation by Glottolog (it is not listed as "spurious" or "unattested") it exceeds basic notability criteria. The focus on ISO code is a particularly odd non-sequitur. Those codes are usually generated when they are needed for library and archival purposes - a basic reality which means sign languages, an historically under-documented class of languages without a widely-recognized standard transcription convention, are much less likely to be included in that standard than spoken languages with IPA and the few domain-specific alternates to IPA like UPA and NAPA. Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 09:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked other sign languages up before making this nomination, and plenty of minor sign languages have ISO codes. See, for example, Kafr Qasem Sign Language - a minor village sign language, and another stub, but with its own ISO code. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A link to Glottolog is not a citation: it provides links to citations, in this case, one citation, which is the same citation which has now been added, and which is still just a footnote. There is a better argument to be made for this content being included in a similar fashion, as a brief mention and a footnote, on the Iranian Sign Language page (itself woefully underdeveloped), than as its own article. Glottolog already provides an exhaustive directory of every language that, as far as we know, has ever been. Wikipedia does not need to replicate this. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, Glottolog is a collection of references. It is still a citation at the page in question, and one you absolutely should not have ignored. The references it links to are absolutely valid as citations as well, and under B.2 at WP:BEFORE, you were obligated to investigate them from the very beginning. Had you done those basic first steps you were supposed to and acted appropriately, you would have made the edits that Kwamikagami made. If you aren't willing to add the supporting material that you come across when following BEFORE, you shouldn't ever be putting deletion tags on pages at all. Legitimate tagging for deletion happens only after the editor has tried to improve the article. Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 18:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into Iranian Sign Language, but certainly not delete without trace. It's a real naturally evolved sign language, it is sourced, it is notable for Glottolog, a reliable source for all documented languages, so it is valid information and notable for inclusion somewhere in WP. Measuring notability of a language by the existence of an ISO-code is ridiculous. An ISO-code is neither a sufficient condition for notability, nor a necessary one. Nothing much to comment about the speedy tag except that it was an egregious misreading of WP:CSD. The Glottolog link was there form the start, and talking about "a simple assertion that the language exists"[1] was also incorrect.

That said, given the sparse information in the lit as of now, a potential option is merging the information into Iranian Sign Language, since Anonby describes the Coffee house-sign language as a potentially related predecessor. The last comment by the nom essentially is a !vote for a merger, an enlightening development within 2 hours starting with a speedy (WP:BEFORE comes to mind). –Austronesier (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge You're right. I do think a merger would be sensible based on the current material, which links it to Iranian Sign Language. The version that I nominated for speedy deletion was completely different (see here) and said they were unrelated. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to tag these articles as per WP:Merge, since the nominating editor has rescinded the deletion in favor of merging. I'll also post a notification at ~~WP:WikiProject Linguistics~~ WP:WikiProject Languages and WP:WikiProject Deaf to hopefully get some informed perspective. Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 18:28, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Are we to understand that before the publication of ISO 639, no languages were notable? Largoplazo (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm ambivalent about merging. The language might be a descendant of the precursor of Persian SL, but that's speculation. Even if it is, speakers would seem to consider it a distinct variety. We have plenty of language articles on varieties whose status as independent languages might need to be reconsidered with further evidence, but AFAIK we don't generally merge them without such evidence.

BTW, this is a complication of removing the auto-ref function of the language info box. If the Glottolog ref had still been automatically generated in the 'Reference' section, this article would presumably never have been nominated for deletion. At least, I suspect that would have been seen as counting as a reference. — kwami (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uanfala: See what I meant back then :) –Austronesier (talk) 09:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say that merging seems inappropriate with the current information. The sources that we have indicates the formal development of Persian Sign Language was independent of KQSL, and without more detail showing a more causal relation between the two than the significant lexical borrowing in informal registers, I would be hesitant to merge them. Hopefully we'll get some WikiProject involvement and be able to get more definitive about the appropriateness of a merger. Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 22:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source seems to indicate that there is plenty of overlap between colloquial PSL and KQSL - at least enough to make it a significant mention on the PSL article. The distinction appears largely that PSL underwent standardization while KQSL did not. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true, I would be much more likely to support a merge. But as I read the sources, that seems entirely speculative. As such, it would be a violation of WP:OR to merge on that basis. Van Isaac, MPLL^cont_WpWS 07:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that only hunting down the original source (Anvari 2017) can likely provide the necessary clarification. Unfortunately, that source appears elusive - there's nothing even close to a hit for the original work on Google scholar (or search). Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – if merging to PSL is problematic, what about creating a list article, such as List of minor sign languages and merging it there? A list article topic can be notable, without the list items in it having to be notable as well, so that could be a side door for a merge here, perhaps. Mathglot (talk) 10:14, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do either? We have lots of stubs for languages that have insufficient attestation for a longer article. I don't see the point of this discussion, which started off as an admitted error. — kwami (talk) 04:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because discussions can start and continue for entirely different reasons. The discussion is raising valid questions about whether a marginal stub supported by a Glottolog entry, itself supported by only a single source, should be a standalone article if it can be shown to be fall broadly under the umbrella of the history of evolution, divergence and variation of another language, here PSL. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose* My apologies for not seeing this discussion here. I was the one who originally suggested deletion (but not speedy deletion) of this page on 20 September; the request for speedy deletion is more recent. Since then, @kwami has pointed out that there was a source in the original article (although hard to find, because the bots weren't working right), and updated the page with helpful information that clarifies the identity of the language and removes my concerns about it. Further, other discussion above indicates that there are enough differences between PSL and QKSL that it would be helpful to keep separate articles which can cross-reference each other. So, I now oppose deletion or merging. AlbertBickford (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, with regard to ISO 639-3 codes, I fully agree that having an ISO 639-3 code is sufficient for notability and inclusion in Wikipedia, but certainly not necessary. There are dozens of sign languages that are known to exist, and which even have publications about them or in them, which don't yet have ISO 639-3 codes. For example, Fiji Sign Language does not, Seychelles Sign Language is under consideration just this year, and Myanmar Sign Language and Cambodian Sign Language were just added last year. There are perhaps dozens more, since the ISO 639-3 standard tends to lag behind knowledge. (If anyone wants to submit a proposal for an ISO 639-3 code for QKSL, feel free to contact me separately from this discussion.) AlbertBickford (talk) 20:26, 18 October 2021 (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.