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 no consensus to delete, indications of consensus to rename. MBisanz talk 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anglic languages

[edit]
Anglic languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This page is not quite an invention of wikipedians, but it is just about. In essence it is a wiki-meme whose survival algorithm is that a small group of Scots particularly patriotic about Scots wish to avoid implying that Scots has anything to do with English, instead taking the contruction Anglic from the Latin word for English. Not good enough. Searching it on google minus wikipedia gets circa 200 hits almost all of which are conspicuously derived from wikipedia or else Scots language promotion sites using wikipedia, while google books yields 1 solitary hit, and that isn't about this topic.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:21, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I first came across this nomenclature in the 1970s while pursuing an interest in comparative linguistics, so although Wikipedia may well have made the term more widespread on the internet, I believe that it does (or did) have an academic non-internet existence. For instance here is a reference to an article predating both Wikipedia and the WorldWideWeb.
1985. The Anglic family of languages. Journal of Historical Linguistics and Philology, 2.1.1-4
No doubt others could be found if someone was prepared to do some rather tedious research, trawling through journals of comparative or historical linguistics.
On a separate note, the fact that some people believe that it is only used by those who wish to disassociate Scots and English is something that could probably be added to the article, (providing that a citation for it can be found at any rate). However it doesn't seem like a good reason for deleting the article. After all we have plenty of articles for concepts used by special interest groups of one sort or another, and in principle this would just be one more. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are no relevant hits on google book or scholar, something which tends to affirm what I've stated, i.e. that its non-wikipedia use is marginal at the very best. The fondness Scots enthusiasts have for the term is pure OR by me (though its appeal should be obvious). This is clear from my experience seeing the places it is present on the internet, my knowledge that Scots-loving nationalistic writers (including historians) like to do other such terms, like calling early medieval Northumbrians "Anglian" or "Anglians" in order to pretend they aren't English, and most importantly the users who spread the term on wikipedia (maybe you can affirm this, being as you are an active admin in the Scots wikipedia). It was no coincidence that this nom saw the reappearance of the wiki campaigner I call the "German anon", who has campaigned relentlessly for Scots on wikipedia for years and who suddenly reappeared to try to give the term more credibility. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Derek Ross raises a telling point, I think. It may or may not be true that "its non-wikipedia use is marginal at the very best," but it could be difficult to prove that. What I think Deacon of Pndapetzim does establish is that its non-wikipedia use online is marginal. While this is indicative that the term is marginal, it is not conclusive. The standing of those who use the term also has to be considered, even if they are only a handful. If they are a handful of recognised experts on Scots English or English dialect generally, then the article should be kept. Alternatively, it could be added to the English language article (which includes "Anglic" in its classification box), with a redirect from here. Compare the articles on Tagmemics and eucatastrophe, neither of which would be viable apart from the high standing of those who coined the terms (Kenneth L. Pike and J. R. R. Tolkien respectively).
If Derek Ross has access to other material on the term Anglic, then it would be good to cite it in the article. It is not implausible that a term with reasonable currency in older literature (pre-Internet explosion) might fail to show significantly online. Some older academics of my acquaintance have staunchly resisted becoming part of the computer culture.
For the article itself. If the subject is a viable one, then the article is pretty much what it should be—a short exposition of the term itself, with comments on its use that go beyond the scope of a dictionary entry. It doesn't attempt to hijack material properly belonging to an article on English language and/or dialect. Nor does it represent "Anglic" as a standard or broadly accepted term for the concept. It represents it as a term used by those who, whatever their motivation, want to emphasize the distinct nature of particular forms of English. The use of the term in the classification box of the English language article should probably be considered tendentious. But this article has its own sociolinguistic validity. Koro Neil (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Its presence in classification boxes is good demonstration, I may point out, of the power of a wiki-meme with a hard-core of ideologically motivated proponents to destroy the relationship between wikipedia articles on the one hand and wiki policies with the body of recommended sources supposed to be used on the other hand. Google books and google scholar contain a reasonable proportion and cross-section of mainstream scholarship, recent and traditional. "Imbellic cautustration" has the same representation, and that's a term I just made up. That I have proven its representation online is marginal does not mean that offline representation is high. It is strong evidence that offline representation is marginal. It is the only credible evidence that can be presented in an AfD nom also as each contributor can verify it (as well as see a fair representation of how much it is used). I have also asserted that use of the term from my own experience is almost non-existent, and frankly I don't think clutching at straws to find an excuse to keep the article or name is in line with the spirit of wikipedia's policies. It is not widespread practice to categorise these languages below Anglo-Frisian, but if it is done "Anglic" is not the term. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:52, 27 January 2009 (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.
More