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. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bura Sign Language (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)

One researcher, Blench, wrote a manuscript about this informal sign language used by hearing-impaired Bura people in the Kukurpu village in Nigeria. I tagged the article, with its one ref to an unpublished manuscript as needing reference improvements. Another editor removed the tag and said that the one ref was sufficient, and could not identify other reliable sources with significant coverage. I'm not sure that all local sign languages are inherently notable, and therefore propose the article for deletion. I do not question that it existed when the researcher was at the village. Edison (talk) 21:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So what is the measure by which some sign languages are more notable than others? — Lfdder (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The researcher said that the village is "not on any map," and said that the gestural language was similar to that used elsewhere in the region. He also described a similar language used by one family. Would a one-family gestural language also be "inherently notable" if one used in a small not-on-the-map village of unspecified population is? The standard should be WP:N, and multiple reliable and independent sources with significant coverage. Edison (talk) 21:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the standard's wp:N, why are we talking about some kind of 'inherent notability'? — Lfdder (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. All languages are notable, just as all nations and all species are notable. This has been our established practice.

And yes, a one-family language is notable. — kwami (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not familiar with the notability guideline which says what you assert Nor do I recall that as a common outcome of AFDs. Edison (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name one natural language article that was ever deleted? — kwami (talk) 06:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Whereas WP:NFT is a valid reason for deletion, this isn't one of those cases. Unless it's the case that this language is a hoax, I don't see logic behind deleting the article on it. I could see a merge to Kilba people (where Bura people presently redirects), but it's specifically a language of the Bura people around Kukurpu... thus I feel a merge there might not satisfy WP:DUE. If there were a Kukurpu article, I would probably support a merge there, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless there is an established policy on languages (in which case someone should link to it), WP:N is indeed the standard. A language documented only in a single manuscript by a single researcher and with no other sources clearly fails WP:N. Vectro (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's mentioned in RSs (books, a peer-reviewed journal). They all cite Blench. — Lfdder (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Vectro. --Flipandflopped (talk) 22:57, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Linguistics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possible merge. The language has received significant coverage (an entire grammar devoted to it) in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. Vectro notes that there is currently no explicit policy on the notability of natural languages; perhaps there should be. It appears to be the case (kwami or others, correct me if I am wrong) that there is to date only one full grammar of the language, plus a small number of linguistics papers that cite that grammar. It is understandable that this would raise notability concerns, especially among editors who are not particularly interested in descriptive or "field" linguistics. As I suggest, though, the general notability guideline specifies only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we want to parse the plural "sources", note that the guideline goes on to say, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Plural sources are generally expected but not required if the source offers high quality, in-depth treatment of the subject. To the possible merge: there appear to be a number of village sign languages that have only one or two sources. It might be preferable (but not strictly necessary) to bundle these into a longer article. Cnilep (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment So far we've heard about an unpublished monograph by Blench, which others have cited. What significant coverage other than that one item are you talking about? "Source" does not equal "sources." Is Blench's short paper a "full grammar?" It says it is similar to other informal sign languages in the region. Would a redirect or merger would be appropriate? Edison (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to merge it into. — kwami (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be an article, since the Blence manuscript says it is similar to other informal gestural systems in the region,(with many of the gestures the same as those used by hearing persons worldwide, such as for driving a car by turning the wheel back and forth) and it makes little sense to maintain articles for similar gesture patterns in every village, with many of the stub articles having no reliable sources or one source.Edison (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Isn't this the only Nigerian village sign language we have an article on? Do you want it merged under village sign language? — Lfdder (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be like merging Cayuse into List of unclassified languages of North America or Indigenous languages of the Americas. It would have undue weight in a general article. — kwami (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This language is very probably an isolate which makes it exceptionally notable. LiliCharlie (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2014 (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.