Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pannonian Romance

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 History of Romanian. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pannonian Romance[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete. This page was speedy-delete-tagged for "already deleted and then re-created" and "created by banned user". But from what I know of linguistics and the area's history it looks sensible to me; and its edit history shows that, although it was started in June 2009 by User:Paul0559 (banned, stated to be a sockpuppet of User:Easy4all), it has been substantially re-edited by many other users since. Currently it has no deleted edits, and its page log has no entries. At Romance Pannonian language is a short visible history of redirects, and a history of deleted edits all made in 2007 (started by User:Brunodam, who is banned) and deleted at 23:01, 25 November 2007. Pannonia#Post-Roman has a link (with a short summary) to page Romance Pannonian language, which currently redirects to page Pannonian Romance. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like a valid article to me, unless there are other issues not evident from the nomination. P Aculeius (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Redirect to History of Romanian. The previous AfD (which resulted in delete) already determined that most of the article is speculation. Then a sockpuppet comes by and re-creates it. The only editors that have made substantial additions (i.e. new content rather than minor copyediting) are all blocked socks: @Paul0559, StrVarus, and Researcheronly:. Brunodam's editing history tells me he is all into Italy's impact in the world, and this article does not look like an exception.

About the contents: having checked the sources (each one can be checked online luckily, although it may take some advanced googling in GBooks), I can say that they either only support circumstantial content or discuss vernacular Latin. GBooks got me just one hit for "Pannonian Romance" and even there it is nothing more but a passing mention in a text speaking of uncertainties and assumptions, ergo fails WP:GNG and lots of non-WP:VERIFIABLE. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changed !vote, considering that it is a viable search term, as demonstrated by that one passing mention. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It looks like a valid article to me. The subject matter seems to be about something transitional between late Latin and Romanian. The worst that should happen this that this merged or redirected, but where? However this is not my subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Godric on Leave (talk) 10:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This points to scholarly legitimacy: "This article is not the right place to discuss the complex problem whether Pannonian Romance was very close to Proto-Romanian ...". And this appears relevant too: "In the West, only Britain and Pannonia changed their language (from Celtic to Anglo-Saxon, and from a Romance language to the Ugrian language Hungarian)." Thinly covered subject, but quite encyclopedic IMO. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 13:05, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Thinly covered" versus the GNG's significant coverage requirement... --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page articulates an apparently legitimate scholarly discourse, largely based on offline sources. Its Italian peer does the same, referring also to several Italian sources. As I wrote, the topic appears to have scholarly legitimacy and hence genuine encyclopedic character. It is also politically charged, since it relates to Romanian vs. Hungarian claims over Transsylvania. The crucial "Bonosa" hairpin is significantly mentioned in "The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum. Truth and Fiction" by Alexandru Madgearu, Cluí-Napoca, 2005 : "... a very important discovery. which proves that the inhabitants continued to speak Latin in the 6th century. A gold hairpin of local manufacture found in this 6th century cemetery bears the inscription BONOSA". Whether this is is relevant to the mechanical implementation of WP policies, I don't know. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can slap a list of books on a page, but without proper referencing to pages, we are left to wonder whether they are genuine sources or just there to make it look professional. And I do not doubt the Pannonians continued to speak some sort of Latin at the time, but at least I was not able to distill a defined other language besides (vulgar) Latin and proto-Romanian out of the listed sources. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"or discuss vernacular Latin." :: Late forms of vernacular Latin / Vulgar Latin gradually changed into early forms of each Romance language. The distinction between them here is fuzzy. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A distinction that does not appear to be common/accepted knowledge, considering the utter lack of sources that actually discuss such a transition. Heck, even the wikipage is mostly discussing the Pannonian people and their history, rather than what they spoke. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion here. The transition from Latin to the Romance languages is a huge topic with a substantial scholarly literature devoted to it (see e.g. [1],[2], [3]). Here we are talking about an hypothetical language, whose very existence is controversial. The controversy and hence the topic however are arguably scholarly relevant. By the way, the relationship to proto-Romanian is doubly hypothetical, so a merge into Pannonia would be more meaningful than one into History of Romanian. 84.73.134.206 (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pannonia (locality) as the better target. The article is largely unsourced original research and sources look sketchy. I'm not able to find sufficient reliable sources to justify an article. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last relist. Possibility of merge or redirect, but target article is unclear.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Redirect to History of Romanian" :: No. Current theory is that Rumanian is related to Vlach and is derived from a Balkan area version of Romance, and not from Pannonian Romance. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best option for a redirect is Keszthely culture. Otherwise, delete, since I cannot find sources that speak of a "Pannonian Romance". It is purely hypothetical that a distinct Romance vernacular was spoken in Pannonia. Srnec (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2017 (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.