Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oligoisolating 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oligoisolating 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)

Per WP:Notability. This near-orphaned page is supposedly about a linguistic topic, yet this term is totally absent in reliable sources about linguistics. A Google scholar search[1] only yields one hit from a journal. I cannot say much about the journal, but the fact that the authors have more than one citation from WP actually rules this out as a WP:RS. A general Google search yields more hits[2] but virtually all of these are blogs and other self-published pages about constructed languages.

The term "oligoisolating language" was apparently coined in conlanger-circles in relation to Toki Pona, by analogy to "oligosynthetic language" (which itself is a highly obscure topic in linguistics). Toki Pona is in fact the only page that links to Oligoisolating language, next to a "see also"-entry in Oligosynthetic language. Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Austronesier (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have not heard the term in my career as a descriptive linguist. That in itself would be a weak argument, but Austronesier has demonstrated convincingly that there are no relevant reliable sources on the term. That being the case, the page shouldn't really exist. Landroving Linguist (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had never heard of this term before, and after looking through some journal search results and reading the nomination, I doubt I will hear of it again. Not notable and should not be a standalone article. — Wug·a·po·des 18:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the above. BD2412 T 18:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Add This also includes by extension the redirect Oligoanalytic language which redirects to "Oligoisolating language". The term "oligoanalytic" is almost non-existent on Google[3]. –Austronesier (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only references I can find are self-published or published in (allegedly) predatory journals. It seems that no reliable sources exist. Cnilep (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because we never publish original research, period. This might have been excused in 2006, but in 2020, it's inexcusable. Bearian (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. It's not a notable concept. There are at least three wikis where people can go to write about oligoisolating languages, but outside of those communities the term will never gather any significant interest because it doesn't exist in natural languages. Therefore it can never pass the notability criterion. I'm curious though, what is a predatory journal?? —Soap— 21:18, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My rationale for the deletion of the redirect is that even though it originally redirected to the "proper" oligosynthesis article, there is no mention of the concept there and likely has never been unless it was added and quickly reverted. —Soap— 21:20, 23 March 2020 (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.