Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tarish 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 of the debate was - no consensus

Tarish language

I deleted this as a speedy, since it seemed to be nonsense with no hits on Google. Historia, the creator, objected and claims a source, but if there is nothing on Google, is this genuine/worthy of an article anyway? jimfbleak 07:02, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• KEEP: There are many articles. I have listed six to show that this language is used. --User:Historia
• Delete, either a hoax or very non-notable. --fvw* 11:13, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
• Hmm, so you base your assessment of non-notability on Google hits alone!? The Google test is not infallible, you know. I think the article should go on peer review first, so that someone can verify the sources claimed. — David Remahl 13:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• delete, the similarity of Tarish, Tarsis, Tartessian (a pre-Roman language in Spain!) is just a coincidence. Mk270
• Keep It would be a shame to loose this article. The articles does need expanding, but since there are other articles about Gypsies/Irish Tavelers, why delete this one. --User:152.163.101.7
  • that's a ridiculous argument; you are saying that one article should be retained merely because Wikipedia does not shun articles on similar topics
• I am aware that Google is not the only test, but the book got only 5 hits (some repeated, and the author only three, so nothing connected to this seem significant/genuine, and why a religion should have its own language is quite beyond my comprehension, especially when it has a minimal existence at best. jimfbleak 15:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• You asked, why a religion should have its own language. Good question. I'll ask my Rabbi at the end of his next Hebrew class. Rachel - Ms. Greenberg 16:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• How about a compromise, could I add the following to Shelta "Tarish and Shelta are among the languages spoken by the Irish Travelers." Then delete Tarish Language as a separate page. -Ms. Greenberg 16:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• All natural languages are Wikipedia-worthy, in my view. But this appears by its own claim to be a dialect of Shelta, which has a reasonable article already. Merge if someone other than Bishop Saucer attests to its existence, otherwise Delete. - Mustafaa 00:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Tentative keep for now, but follow up. This discussion seems awfully inclined toward deletion, maybe because people are feeling hostile toward the author. I was half inclined to say "delete" based just on the author's retaliatory listing of Spanglish, but I won't. http://www.tarishchurchfoundation.org/ looks likely (though not by any means certain) to be real. (If not, it's a pretty odd hoax; I suppose it could be an obscure scam.) If Tarish really is a language (I'd never heard of it), or even a significant dialect, we should have it in Wikipedia. If people simply doubt its validity, I'd prefer to tag it as under an accuracy dispute rather than delete it. I think we would do well to give the author some time to find further references, which may exist in print. This may simply be a case where the Google test is not appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

• My Last Word

As I am neither an academic nor a member of their church, I can only cite what I have found by search engines: At least one fundamentlist Christian group in America identifies Tarish (tarshish) with England [click here] So there appears to be two differenct churches which identity Tarish (Tarshish) with England. There is a specific location in Engalnd called Tarish. In an obituary, I found that Heaton - Mary, A. (Hill) was born in Tarish, England, Dec. 12, 1880; [click herel] It doesnt's seem to far fetch that they would believe that their language evolved from Tarshish. Professor MacAlister speculated in his book Shelta: The Secret Languages of Ireland that priests had invented Shelta. Perhaps these priests gave them a "noble ancestry." I still believe that, regardless of their beliefs, their language should be respected. -Ms. Greenberg 02:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, don't see why this information should be hidden. Merging with Shelta might be an option, but I don't see objection to it standing alone either --Pgreenfinch 08:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• KeepOne reason given for deleting this article is that it has only one source. But since

the author of the article Yeshivish acknowledges that there is only one source for his language, this reason seems suspicious becuse it is not being uniformily enforced. The Yeshivism expert cited was a linguist. The source for the Tarish Language is only a bishop. I did some research on that bishop. He used to be an academic of some sort [article.] He too would seem to have the academic training needed to document a language. I see no reason to delete the Tarish Lanugage. It like Yashivism is interesting. -Frederick Boca 14:53, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• • This user has three edits including this one (and a suspected copyright violation), all within an hour of the vote. Possible sock-puppet. — David Remahl 15:36, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I had made several edits to make my above message clear. What is that bad? What copyright violation. The only page. Wisdom of Solomon that I have made was based on a public domain copy of the Catholic Enclycopedia foud at New Adevent. What is a socl-puppet. - Frederick Boca
  • Frederick: It was not a personal attack. A sock-puppet is a user created by an already active editor of Wikipedia and is used only to lend credibility and support to that editor's viewpoint on Wikipedia. Since Votes for deletion allow one vote per editor, possible sock-puppets are marked as such. People with few edits that seem to have a lot of insight into Wikipedia politics are often suspected of being sock-puppets. Sometimes, unfortunately, incorrectly. Thanks for clearing up the situation. Please clarify that the source of Wisdom of Solomon was public domain (instructions are available on Wisdom of Solomon. — David Remahl 15:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Thanks David. There is a great book called the Public Domain: How to Find and Use Copyright-free writings, music, art & more. It is published by Nolo Press. Christian Classics is a great source of public domain materials. -Frederick Boca 16:07, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Daivid, if your are an official of Wikipedia, could be please delete my article Wisdom of Solomon. It seems to be reduntant because there is already a book of wisdom. I am a newbies and I apologize for a breach of the rules. -Frederick Boca 16:14, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not an "official", Wikipedia doesn't have those. I'm an administrator, but don't have the authority to delete pages as I see fit. However, I have _redirected_ Wisdom of Solomon to Book of Wisdom. Thanks! (Sorry for cluttering the VfD page with this discussion, but I believe it should stay to demonstrate that Frederick is - in all likeliness - not a sock-puppet but a real editor. — David Remahl 16:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• DELETE I wish to change my vote, if allowed. I contacted that group listed in the article. I learned that the Bishop never claimed in his book that the Tarish were Irish Travelers, but that they were simply described as a nomadic people. He had mistook the term Shelta to mean the common language of all nomadic peoples in Great Britain. His book had been rushed into production without proper fact checking. There is a Tarish language but it is not as Historia/Rachel had described. I also asked why there were no google hits for "Tarish Language." They replied that it is the ad-hoc name given it when they created their foundation. Since he wrote that book, he has learned that the Tarish are descended from a small group Zincali Gypsies from Southern Spain who made it to England where they came under the influence of displaced herectical monks who had followed Elizzabeth Barton. These monks created the myth of a Tarshish connection. I googled the Zincali and found 59 hits. This historia/rachel may have been a disgruntled ex-church member. -Frederick Boca 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I don't know what to make of all of this: after reading the above, there is probably an article on this topic to be had, but this clearly isn't it. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:13, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
• I was able to contact Bishop Saucer via email. He wrote that Tarish is a variety of CALÓ - aka Spanish Romani. Ethnologue list its http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=RMR France. Brazil, and Portgual also have varieties of Calo.
• Comment. According to the OED, "tarish" means 'like tare' (the biblical plant), and "tarshish" is a place mentioned in the bible (actual location unknown). The other 4 dictionaries and encyclopedias at my local public dead tree repository had either word. Niteowlneils 05:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Peer review - if we're able to establish this *actually exists* we can keep it. I have no idea whether it does or not.
• Even if this article is deleted, I suppose that it can be recreated (hopefully by someone other than the original editor) should evidence be found. Except for the one book cited by the originial editor, what evidence would be satisfactory? Frederick Boca 19:11, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

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.