Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nieuweschans dialect

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. Curbon7 (talk) 10:00, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nieuweschans dialect

[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)

Hoax article per User:Erik Wannee's statement and see its article's talk page in the section "HOAX". JeBonSer (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. JeBonSer (talk) 09:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:17, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called sources are useless.

Source #1 gives a page in the internet archive that suggests that it has been written (and copyrighted) in 1999 and written in 2008 (Huh?), but in fact it has been uploaded at 19 July of this year. No author of this article is mentioned, only '©2001-2008 Noajwschansk Sproak'.
Source #2 is a 'Photo of an Newpaper'... What new(s)paper is it then? And why is it unreadable? I cannot determine at all what the (sort of) text is about. And it has been uploaded one week ago.
Source #3 has no relevant information at all. In the Dutch version of this article, it links to a list of words in this dialect, without any author. And it has been uploaded last week, too.
Source #4 is identical to source #1.

The article writes that 'The dialect is spoken informally in a small community of around 18 people', quoting source #4. It is not written what that estimation is based on, and who has done research to that.

The dialect is suggested to be 'developed' in 1999. So should it be seen as an artificial dialect? I think it is probably at most a hobby project without any encyclopedic relevance. Erik Wannee (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - at best, it was invented in one day; at worst, it's a hoax. Bearian (talk) 09:36, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not covered in WP:RS Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:13, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A somewhat invested hoax is still a hoax. gidonb (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2025 (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.