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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 20:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Pannonian Romance

Pannonian Romance (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Has been deleted once through an AfD, and the second time was turned into a redirect. It has been reconstituted once again, without the addition of a single valid RS (The only additional source in this version is to another wiki). After reverting to the redirect as per the former AfD (since this is virtually the same article), the other editor reverted and left a very polite message on my talk page ( User talk:Onel5969#Reinstating the article Pannonian Romance). Since it is virtually the same article, the same reasons of the last AfD still remain. The only changes are the addition of an unsourced quote and the addition of material from the non-RS wiki source. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:00, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Thank you for the discussion here, I will continue to be polite (hopefully) and explain my reasons for recreating the article.

1. The additional citation that Onel5969 mentions above, is of an original document from 1200 to 1230, of a history book, the Gesta Hungarorum. The to another wiki is Wikisource, which is an online digital library of free content textual sources. The citation itself refers to the Gesta Hungarorum. You can question the accuracy of a history book written around 1200 about events that took place 300 years before that, by an author we can longer determine. But it is a valid citation.

2. I read criticism in the original discussion of the 2007 article, as mostly about missing citations and also that the language was a speculation. It was deleted back in 2007 and parts of the article were preserved in Pannonia. The details are not preserved in Pannonia any more.

3. The article was reinstated in 2009 and stayed up for 8 years. During that period numerous editors improved it and added citations. Then in 2017 it was put up for deletion again. I don't see how a consensus was reached in 2017. 2 editors were for Keep and 4 were for Redirect (if I am counting that correctly). The editors favoured different redirections, with History of Romanian, Pannonia and Keszthely culture all being up for debate.

4. I would like to comment that I am not the first editor to break the consensus of the AfD debate in 2017, because the Redirect has already been changed from Redirect History of Romanian to Redirect Keszthely culture.

5 I would argue against both these redirects. With Keszthely culture because it narrows the language and the population that was still cited to have been there and not assimilated, down to only one settlement. And against History of Romanian because that article goes to great lengths to explain language development in Roman Dacia to the north of the Lower Danube and ignores Pannonia, and because those populations were romanized Dacians, closely related to Thracian and distinct from Illyrian, and in Pannonia there were Romanized Celts. Two different Indo-European sub-branches being converged by a third. Alternative Transport ( talk) 16:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: The population was there and it was isolated from both Byzantine and Roman control for 600 years, with unstable local governments. The use of a Romance language was attested. It is of course regrettable that we do not have the same degree of documentation of this Celtic influenced Eastern Romance Language compared to the Dacian, Illyrian, Thacian, Hellenic influenced languages of Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian, and Istro-Romanian, but it is notable and interesting history and should also be included in the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alternative Transport ( talk • contribs) 16:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Once deleted, once redirected. Why are we doing this again? Alternative Transport has brought nothing new. Srnec ( talk) 22:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Dear Srnec,

Why are we doing this again? Because, I would argue, no true consensus was reached in 2007 or in 2017 with the AfD discussions basically just being a vote and not a consensus between editors. Wikipedia is not a democracy and majority voting is not the determining factor in whether a nomination succeeds or not. Nergaal argued strongly to keep the article, as did P Aculeius and Peterkingiron. To reach consensus there needs to be consensus and not just a tally of votes. The article was up again for 8 years, and as far as I can tell was only considered again for deletion because all articles from one editor were up for deletion consideration.

Maybe I can convince you to change your mind on the arguments you brought in 2017. In 2007 you argued for a redirect to Keszthely culture or delete with the reasoning that purely hypothetical that a distinct Romance vernacular was spoken in Pannonia.

As argued above I disagree with the redirect to Keszthely culture because it narrows the langoid down to only one settlement.

To your purely hypothetical argument. There are a few ways to understand what you mean here.

* First way would be that you argue there were no Romanized inhabitants of Pannonia, that they were all killed or driven into exile by the Huns, Lombards, Gepids or Avars. But there are records that disprove that hypothethis, the Franks after defeating the Avars record a romanized population with a church that has fallen into decentralization and the Magyars record them as one of the four populations in their new kingdom, and we have gravestones in Pécs, Tokod, Sopron, Szombathely, Dunaújváros and Keszthely. There was a population there for 600 years that spoke some Romance language.

* Second way to interrupt your argument is, that this population was speaking some Romance language for 600 years that was spoken somewhere else and thus it should be linked to that article. I would like to note again that the population was isolated from Roman and Byzantine authority and had various local governments and not that strong cultural and linguistic exchanges with other parts of the Latin world. The argument here is not if the this langoid was a distinct language or a dialect, there is little data to show how much of the original Celtic language was retained and if it had any common features with e.g. to oïl languages. It is hard to quantify how much Illyrian, Germanic, Turkic influence the various local governments had on it. But there it is quite certain that a population isolated for 600 years develops at least a dialect if not a separate language, and there are many dialects with their own article.

* Third, you were arguing that there is no exact documentation of this language and thus it is hypothetical and not to be determined if this langoid was a dialect or a language. It is not necessary to be able to determine if it was a dialect or a language, the uncertainty should be explained in the article. And even if it was a hypothetical language with only few clues, there are wiki articles of hypothetical language that have less evidence.-- Alternative Transport ( talk) 13:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• If the article you created were new, there would be something to talk about. But you simply reverted the legitimate result of an AFD. I have reverted you and restored the consensus. When you have new content to add or new sources to cite, then we can have a productive discussion. Srnec ( talk) 21:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

Dear Srnec, I do intend to fix the issues raised in the previous discussions. It has been 3 days since I recreated and I have added a new citation and I intend to further improve the article. I am very much trying to be productive here. I am trying to improve the short commings of the article. I am trying to understand your arguments. I read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion before recreating it and stated my understanding on the talk page of the article. I would like point to you that violating the General advice of Wikipedia:Guide to deletion by blanking it (see: You must not blank the article (unless it is a copyright infringement).) I will thus revert your edit. It is also important that the article is not blanked, so I and hopefully others can continue to edit the article during the discussion period.-- Alternative Transport ( talk) 21:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

I think you are wrong. You do not get to determined now whether the AFDs were closed properly, which is what you are doing when you say that consensus was reached. A consensus was reached: that's what the closer determined. Further, while a deleted article can always be recreated new, restoring the exact same article that was AFD'd is not kosher. Frankly, you are wasting people's time. You should have begun the article from scratch or used the old article to work from in your userspace or off-wiki.

The terms "Pannonian Romance" and "Romance Pannonian" are almost completely unknown in English. There is certainly not enough to sustain an article. I get many more hits for, e.g., "Pannonian Latin". These cannot be regarded as synonyms: the vernacular Latin of late Roman Pannonia could perhaps sustain an article, but the existence of a subsequent development to that language after the Romans left is hypothetical and there is not enough to say. I do not deny that there was a Vulgar Latin-speaking population in sub-Roman Pannonia, but nobody knows if it was a continuation of the Romanized population of imperial times or a new culture created among immigrants and settlers in the confusion of the Roman withdrawal and barbarian movements. Even that it spoke Vulgar Latin/Proto-Romance is a 'best guess' and not a fact proved by inscriptions or anything. No, BONOSA is not evidence of a Pannonian Romance language. I'm afraid I don't know anything about Latin- or Roamnce-inscribed "gravestones in Pécs, Tokod, Sopron, Szombathely, Dunaújváros and Keszthely" from the Avar period. This is not my area of expertise (archaeology never is); I've just read some relevant books and papers. Where can I read about these inscriptions? Srnec ( talk) 23:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• Possible keep -- It is unfortunate that the green colour on the map is indistinct at the normal magnification. This map plots it as a language in scattered areas of western Hungary. As such a merge or redirect to anything directly related to Romania is inappropriate. The 1st AFD ended with the suggestion of redirecting to Keszthely culture, but that is tied to a single village, possibly a "type site" for the culture. If it is a "type site", that article needs to be amended, so that it covers all the settlements of which it was a type. The present article has content that is not in that one, so that a merger would be needed, but by someone who knows and understands the subject, which I do not. Note that the cross reference to British Romance redirects to British vulgar Latin, a languages used in ecclesiastical contexts until the Reformation and legal ones until 1733. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

The map has a couple of issues and should be recreated as an SVG. One of the issues is that it shows extinct languages and living languages on the same map without distinction. It is confusing that Aromanian and Meglenoromanian are shown with their present day or recent distribution, and Pannonian Romance is then shown with settlments of around 600 settlements, whiles Dalmatian is shown for about 1800. Alternative Transport ( talk) 22:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC) reply

• keep We need more information on Pannonians, not less. They are obscure, sure, but still part of history and making them less obscure is what a source like Wikipedia is supposed to do. Once so far I have made a Wikipedia link to the main article dealing with Pannonians, but if for some reason you must delete this, merge it into the main Pannonian article.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 04:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep This appears to be an elusive topic, but it has seen coverage; that little definite has been concluded about the language does not detract from the fact that people have written about it, which is our criterion. Sourcing in the "Language" section isn't great, and in particular it would be helpful to get that ref for "linguist Roxana Curcă" (the only academic of that name I can find deals in the archaeology of salt consumption?), but it seems just about sufficient. (The "Geography section", on the other hand, seems very tentative and peripherally related; I'd ditch that.) -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:04, 7 March 2019 (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.