Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anca 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 delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anca language

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

Unsourced, dubious language. No meaningful hits on gbooks or scholar. Cannot find an ISO language code for it. Note that Áncá language, which does have an ISO code [1], and currently redirects to Manta language is not the same thing. Áncá is an African language [2] whereas this article claims Anca to be a Latin cant spoken in Plzen. Spinning Spark 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I generally trust Kwamikagami (talk · contribs), but I literally cannot find a single citation anywhere online that is not obviously copied from us. Massive numbers of false positives, though, so I might've missed something. --Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kwamikagami did it at the request Talk:Manta language#Anca, Czech Republic of the same editor who created the entry we're debating on Wiktionary. This edit certainly raises suspicions of a possible hoax. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless article can be made verifiable.Citing (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a single google.scholar hit - seems to be a hoax made by a language inventor.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I am not alleging a hoax, only lack of notability. It was created by an editor in good standing and at least one other editor has expanded it. Spinning Spark 17:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it is a hoax. It is very unlikely that a lanbauge with 100 speakers would exist in the heart of Europe and received zero attention from academic linguists. It is not at all unlikely that some language engineer would try to pass of his creation as real.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The part about a Polish city developing a French/Spanish cant certainly would need some heavy explaining, not to mention the use of the letter Ç, which none of the local languages has, and the fact that it's used to represent a velar fricative, which would be unique among the languages of Europe. The alleged source languages and the local languages have ways of representing that sound- why would the speakers of this language use a letter everybody else uses for an s, ch or ts sound? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To confirm, this is indeed User:Farmadyll's baby, started at his request. I just copied my AfD notice onto his talk page. I have no idea what it is, or if it's real, which is why I tagged it for citation. As for the artlang in his sandbox, that is clearly presented as an artlang.

If we do delete, IMO it should be by reverting to the redirect (or by deleting and then moving the other rd here), since we usually accommodate diacritics that way. — kwami (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If that is done then the link from cant (language) will need erasing entirely, rather than let a bot misdirect it. Spinning Spark 18:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: From my poking around online, there appears to exist a Pilsen (or Plzen) dialect of Czech—but it is described everywhere as a dialect of Czech, not a Latin-based language. Would it make sense for someone who reads Czech to see if there is anything relevant on the Czech Wikipedia? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most large cities have their own dialect so that is not so significant. This debate started on Wiktionary concerning a specific word in the alleged lanbguage - they probably have a greater density of language experts and seem to be agreeing with this deletion. There is no entry for Anca on cs.wikipedia, the closest match is cs:Ančia, an article about a river which has Anča as an alternative spelling. Spinning Spark 06:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable, then redirect the historyless page to Manta language. I disagree, however, with Spinningspark's assessment above, "I am not alleging a hoax, only lack of notability". Any verifiable natural language is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. But this is almost certainly a hoax for the reason Maunus gave: even with very few speakers, there's no way a Latin-based cant in the middle of Europe would have gone unnoticed and unreported-on by linguists. Angr (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikt:Wiktionary:Requests for verification#Çetler. Spinning Spark 06:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essentially OR, subject to re-creation when reliable sources can be located. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 7 September 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.