Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bura Sign Language
possible merge. The language has received significant coverage (an entire grammar devoted to it) in a reliable source that is independent of the subject. Vectro notes that there is currently no explicit policy on the notability of natural languages; perhaps there should be. It appears to be the case (kwami or others, correct me if I am wrong) that there is to date only one full grammar of the language, plus a small number of linguistics papers that cite that grammar. It is understandable that this would raise notability concerns, especially among editors who are not particularly interested in descriptive or "field" linguistics. As I suggest, though, the |general notability guideline specifies only "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If we want to parse the plural "source''s''", note that the guideline goes on to say, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." Plural source''s'' are generally expected but not required if the source offers high quality, in-depth treatment of the subject. To the possible merge: there appear to be a number of village sign languages that have only one or two sources. It might be preferable (but not strictly necessary) to bundle these into a longer article
— User:Cnilep, 01:47, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)