Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Okjeo 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 redirect‎ to Puyŏ languages. No evidence of substantial coverage of the language, distinct from its language family, has come forward. Content can be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okjeo 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)

Okjeo (Okchŏ) was a polity described in the Dongyi section of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms. They surely spoke some language, but not one word of it is recorded. The only information about the language is the statement in the above chapter that "the language is much the same as Goguryeo but with small differences here and there". That is not enough for an article, and is already included in the Puyŏ languages article, which is about four languages mentioned in that Chinese source.

All the references in the article are either paraphrases of that statement or are actually about the Goguryeo language, for which some (controversial) evidence does exist. Kanguole 22:16, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Although I cannot say if the article should be removed or kept due to my biases with my edits on the article, I just want to say that I don't believe deletion should be an option and at most, make it a redirect to the Puyŏ languages as you say the information is included in the article itself. Spino-Soar-Us (talk) 23:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Puyŏ languages. seefooddiet (talk) 00:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, History, and Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I am satisfied with the sources and structure of the page and think it could be retained as a detailed article. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the amount of references is acceptable for the scope of this topic. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:46, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There doesn’t seem to be much more that could be added to the article, but what is in there is well sourced from scholarly articles. Well sourced articles being short / having differences of opinion between scholars is not reason for deletion so long as neutral viewpoint is maintained, and all opinions mentioned.

Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help noticing that all of these keep !votes are based on superficially measuring text and counting references, but have not engaged with the deletion rationale given above. Kanguole 18:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, “I disagree with what the scholars in the field say” isn’t a proper rationale for deletion though? If you have other scholars in the field that you know disagree, and they have published their work in reliable sources, then the article might breach Neutrality standards, but that’s something you edit into the article, making sure you cite your conflicting sources, not a reason for deletion Absurdum4242 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing like "I disagree with what the scholars in the field say" in the deletion rationale, which makes a completely different argument. Perhaps the offhand remark "(controversial)"? But that was about Goguryeo language, which is a different topic from this one. Kanguole 19:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

very very weak keep - While it's true that much of the article does seem to restate information that can be found on the Puyŏ languages page, the only reason that I would vote keep is because the Okjeo language page elaborates a bit more information than on Puyŏ languages. (especially the comment about its relationship to the Nivkh languages).

Now I'm not sure if the extra details on Okjeo language merit its having a separate article. I would consider voting redirect if the extra tidbits of information were rewritten into the Puyŏ languages page itself. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MetropolitanIC: I've added Janhunen's view to Puyŏ languages, but he discusses only Buyeo (maybe Nivkh/Amuric) and Goguryeo (maybe Tungusic), and does not mention Okjeo. Reference [10] is a Korean translation of part of the Chinese Records of the Three Kingdoms, an ancient source that would be OR for us to interpret. Reference [12] (actually Miyake, not Robbeets) discusses Goguryeo and does not mention Okjeo. Kanguole 08:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If keep voters could more clearly refute the deletion rationale, that would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close As per the nominee. It would seem that consensus is already in favour of the article. Doha Dear (talk) 10:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doha Dear, it's the nominator, not the "nominee" and they are arguing for Deletion, not Keeping the article so your vote doesn't make any sense. This is not surprising given your lack of experience (20 edits). Maybe edit articles for a while before taking on deletion discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I meant to say "as per the editors seeking to keep the article." Sometimes, people make mistakes. Doha Dear (talk) 14:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. No clear rationale for keep presented yet. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Puyŏ languages. There is plenty of coverage, but none of it is substantial. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 17:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, perhaps partially merge to Puyŏ languages. Based on the article, there is almost nothing (sourceable) to say about this language, whose very existence is only presumed. It is therefore better covered in an article with a broader scope. The "keep" opinions above do not address this issue, which was raised in the nomination; they should therefore be disregarded. Sandstein 09:40, 10 October 2024 (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.