This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage
This article is part of WikiProject Deaf, the WikiProject which seeks to improve articles relating to all aspects of deaf-related and Deaf culture. For the Project guidelines, see the project page or talk page.DeafWikipedia:WikiProject DeafTemplate:WikiProject Deafdeaf
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan
As of 2021-09-20, there are no sources cited for the claim that there is a village sign language here. Given that the village has only 44 inhabitants (according to the article on the village), there can't be that many deaf people. Wikipedia should not be the first place where the existence of the language is reported, because that would constitute original research. If no one provides any sources for this information, I will nominate the page for deletion. AlbertBickford (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd reviewed the source as you should have, you would've seen that the language was real but was misidentified with a village that happened to have the same name. Correcting. — kwami (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read my comment fully, you would have seen that at the time I wrote the comment, there were no sources cited for me to review. Since then, I've seen that someone added a source, which is good, and has improved the description. Thank you for doing so. I'm going to remove the suggestion to delete the article, there is no reason to do so now. AlbertBickford (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd read the stub fully (and there was hardly anything to read), you would have seen that there was a source at the time you wrote that comment. — kwami (talk) 03:09, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, @Kwamikagami, I see now what you mean. There was a Glottolog reference in the infobox which I missed, because it wasn't listed in a reference section at the bottom of the article. Thanks to @Iskandar323, it is there now, with a footnote in the article. Thanks to both of you for these improvements. I'm satisfied that there is sufficient documentation to justify retaining the article as a stub (although of course I'd be interested in more information if it is available). AlbertBickford (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskandar323 reverted my edit that removed the AfD; I assumed that since I was the one who put it in there, and was the only one who had expressed any concerns, I could go ahead and remove it. Is there anyone left who thinks the article should be removed? Or can we go ahead and get rid of the AfD permanently? AlbertBickford (talk) 13:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that Iskandar323 contributed anything at all.
BTW, I believe when this stub was written, it did have a Glottolog ref in the 'References' section, that was auto-generated by the info box. A bot even went through and added 'References' sections to those articles that didn't have them to properly display those refs. But the auto-ref function was removed from the language infobox template, so now hundreds or maybe thousands of articles are only ref'd in the info box, with an empty 'References' section.
Since Iskandar323 no longer wants the article deleted, and you don't, and I certainly don't, and no-one else has supported deletion, I agree we should simply close the RfD and remove the tag. We might need to report Iskandar323 if they continue to dig in their heels for no reason. — kwami (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kwamikagami: You should moderate your tone and stop being needlessly unhelpful. I don't know if the problem is that being on Wikipedia for too long has given you too much of a sense of your own superiority, but maybe if you occasionally sat down and took the time to explain things to other users, you might save yourself time in the long-run. By your own admission the changes to the auto-ref function has created problems. You could explain this in edit comments rather than calling peoples 'asses'. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not intention of 'digging my heels' in about anything. I listen to others, and act accordingly. Why would I concur with other users that deletion is not necessary and that merging might be better only to recant my own testimony? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The change to the auto-ref function doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to read the articles you edit, or of digging in your heels and edit-warring over your errors. And if you insist on keeping a RfD going even after admitting it was an error, then you are just being an ass. As for my tone, it's not a matter of feeling superior, it's that I don't care for trolls. That's the only explanation I can come up with for why you would continue to waste other people's time. — kwami (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify things, I was the one who submitted the original RfD. But, it seems like everyone is agreement that we should keep the article, so I've removed the RfD from the article again. If anyone disagrees, and thinks it still should be deleted, let's discuss it further here rather than continuing to flip the page back and forth. AlbertBickford (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see that there was substantial discussion going on separately, which I hadn't seen when I wrote the above. And, I see there *is* disagreement, so I've reverted my edit from earlier today. AlbertBickford (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
