417:. Folkspraak is notable for being (probably) the first collaborative conlang project online. Besides, it won't be a problem to find some coverage in reliable sources. The problem is that over the years, Folkspraak has several times been rebooted from start, and at some point it became a common moniker for several different language projects, some of which are quite different from others. That doesn't necessarily mean they are different languages, since all versions are mutually intelligible, but a common standard was never reached. As a result, it is impossible to describe Folkspraak as a single language with a single standard, without taking into account its history. And obviously, it is nonsense to present the phonology of one version and take text samples from different versions. I agree that a redirect to
441:"Probably"—you don't even say firmly that it has the one characteristic based on which you're asserting notability. Besides that, I need to remark that "notable" in Knowledge (XXG)-speak doesn't have its usual English meaning: it doesn't mean "worthy of note" (that is, worthy of note because it's the first ...) but "
269:
constructed language making it suitable to be "a sort of" lingua franca—then, later, we're shown the Lord's Prayer in five "dialects" of it—and they're patently different languages, no more alike than the diverse languages they're supposed to be a lingua franca for. So this article isn't even telling
458:
different), with independent groups of people having different motivations and following different strategies working on them, then they're different subjects. The fact that they keep appropriating the same name for their diversity of projects doesn't make them a single article topic. And—just look
353:
I can find no reliable independent sourcing for this article to show the subject's notability. It's apparently an idea that's under development and is being pulled in multiple directions by different people/groups. More than thirteen years since the first version of this article was first created,
260:
I'm taking another shot, seeing that there were several no-consensus outcomes for lack of input, at putting this up for a deletion discussion. There is still, six years after the last discussion, no coverage in independent reliable sources, so it fails
229:
91:
86:
190:
96:
274:. I don't doubt that there's an ideal lying under it that some people are hoping to achieve, but to a degree the article is about something that doesn't exist, at least yet.
311:
223:
122:
81:
449:". As much as any one person may feel the effort is worthy of note, the relevant question is whether it has received such note. I see no evidence that it has.
137:
375:, even on the off chance that secondary sources covering this strange attempt at a language are found, it would be far better covered there.
117:
110:
17:
163:
158:
468:
432:
405:
384:
363:
345:
323:
302:
283:
131:
127:
65:
167:
244:
487:
211:
40:
150:
380:
205:
483:
425:
418:
372:
53:
36:
201:
464:
401:
376:
319:
298:
279:
237:
251:
339:
106:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
482:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
422:
359:
61:
262:
460:
397:
315:
294:
275:
154:
217:
446:
290:
454:
In addition, if these are all different projects (and the article stresses that they
335:
265:. On top of that it isn't even convincing, contradictory as it is: It's defined as
184:
459:
at them in the comparison in the article. No two of them are the same language.
355:
57:
146:
71:
421:
would be the best solution, but please leave the page history intact. —
478:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
354:
and it still does not appear to have significant traction.
180:
176:
172:
445:
noted in one or more of the various ways described at
236:
250:
92:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak (3rd nomination)
87:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak (2nd nomination)
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
490:). No further edits should be made to this page.
310:Note: This discussion has been included in the
312:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
138:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
309:
97:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak language
293:is a problem with the article as well.
79:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
334:, does not appear to satisfy GNG. –
24:
123:Introduction to deletion process
82:Articles for deletion/Folkspraak
1:
469:01:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
433:23:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
406:01:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
385:12:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
364:02:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
346:00:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
324:00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
303:03:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
284:00:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
270:us reliably what Folkspraak
66:05:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
113:(AfD)? Read these primers!
507:
480:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
77:AfDs for this article:
419:Pan-Germanic language
373:Pan-Germanic language
111:Articles for deletion
54:Pan-Germanic language
50:delete and redirect
326:
128:Guide to deletion
118:How to contribute
498:
396:I endorse this.
342:
255:
254:
240:
188:
170:
108:
34:
506:
505:
501:
500:
499:
497:
496:
495:
494:
488:deletion review
430:
377:Devonian Wombat
340:
197:
161:
145:
142:
105:
102:
101:
75:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
504:
502:
493:
492:
474:
473:
472:
471:
451:
450:
436:
435:
426:
411:
410:
409:
408:
388:
387:
366:
348:
328:
327:
306:
305:
258:
257:
194:
141:
140:
135:
125:
120:
103:
100:
99:
94:
89:
84:
78:
76:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
503:
491:
489:
485:
481:
476:
475:
470:
466:
462:
457:
453:
452:
448:
444:
440:
439:
438:
437:
434:
431:
429:
424:
420:
416:
413:
412:
407:
403:
399:
395:
392:
391:
390:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
367:
365:
361:
357:
352:
349:
347:
343:
337:
333:
330:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
308:
307:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
273:
268:
264:
253:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
203:
200:
199:Find sources:
195:
192:
186:
182:
178:
174:
169:
165:
160:
156:
152:
148:
144:
143:
139:
136:
133:
129:
126:
124:
121:
119:
116:
115:
114:
112:
107:
98:
95:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
479:
477:
455:
442:
427:
414:
393:
368:
350:
331:
271:
266:
259:
247:
241:
233:
226:
220:
214:
208:
198:
104:
49:
47:
31:
28:
423:IJzeren Jan
224:free images
461:Largoplazo
428:Uszkiełtu?
398:Largoplazo
316:Largoplazo
295:Largoplazo
289:Addendum:
276:Largoplazo
147:Folkspraak
72:Folkspraak
484:talk page
37:talk page
486:or in a
443:has been
369:Redirect
336:DarkGlow
191:View log
132:glossary
39:or in a
415:Comment
394:Comment
230:WP refs
218:scholar
164:protect
159:history
109:New to
356:Meters
351:Delete
332:Delete
263:WP:GNG
202:Google
168:delete
58:Daniel
245:JSTOR
206:books
185:views
177:watch
173:links
16:<
465:talk
447:WP:N
402:talk
381:talk
360:talk
320:talk
299:talk
291:WP:V
280:talk
238:FENS
212:news
181:logs
155:talk
151:edit
62:talk
456:are
371:to
252:TWL
189:– (
52:to
467:)
404:)
383:)
362:)
344:)
322:)
314:.
301:)
282:)
272:is
232:)
183:|
179:|
175:|
171:|
166:|
162:|
157:|
153:|
64:)
56:.
463:(
400:(
379:(
358:(
341:✉
338:(
318:(
297:(
278:(
267:a
256:)
248:·
242:·
234:·
227:·
221:·
215:·
209:·
204:(
196:(
193:)
187:)
149:(
134:)
130:(
60:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.