Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conambo 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 keep. Merge discussions can take place on the article's talk page. postdlf (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conambo language

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

Hoax? Cannot verify existence. Google provides no hits outside of Wikipedia. Renata (talk) 00:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I searched "Conambo language" in Google and found some other sources after those that refer to Wikipedia like: http://www.ovguide.com/conambo-language-9202a8c04000641f800000000b3db39c. But I don't feel like they are that reliable and I'm curious as to why the author did not put any sources....—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 00:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Keep This book, "The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide," edited by Lyle Campbell and, Verónica Grondona, appears to be a reliable source and not a mirror of Wikipedia. It lists several scholarly works which have discussed it as a dialect or distinct language. It has also been spelled "Konambo." Without specifically addressing the possible Conambo dialect of Záparo, [1] says that Zaporo speakers in Ecuador declined from tens of thousands before the European invasions to a handful today, but they are recognized by the Ecuadoran government as an indigenous nationality. If we choose to get rid of the article despite being at least a recognized dialect once spoken in one village, we could redirect or merge to Zaparoan languages. Edison (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: just to confirm that the source you found is definitely a high quality one. Lyle Campbell is a prominent scholar in the field, and the authors he is citing are likewise well-respected specialists. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Záparo language since there's hardly anything about either of them, and it's probably best considered a dialect of Záparo. Angr (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Campbell and Grondona note, Loukotka posits Conambo as a distinct language. Kaufman treats it as a dialect, but then he also treats other lects we have separate articles on as dialects. For consistency, IMO we should keep Conambo as a separate article, since we don't follow Kaufman for the others. It doesn't hurt to have a stub on a subject there is little info on. — kwami (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Záparo language. Regardless of the precise nature of the relationship between the languages, there doesn't seem to be much to say about Conambo/Konambo/Záparo-Conambo, and only a handful of published sources. (At any rate, it looks like most everyone agrees that the article should not be deleted.) Cnilep (talk) 00:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kwamikagami. Merging to Záparo language is also an option. -- 202.124.73.17 (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2013 (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.