Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dutch alphabet

{{ns:0|S}}

{{#ifeq:Dutch alphabet|Dutch alphabet||

:{{la|Dutch alphabet}} – (View AfD)(View log)

The Dutch alphabet is exactly the same as the Latin alphabet. The article says that some consider "ij" to be a letter, but "native Dutch speakers" always consider this to be 26. I think native Dutch speakers determine how the Dutch language is. Also, the Taalunie considers ij not to be a letter, and the Taalunie is the only official body for regulating the Dutch language. Nearly the entire article is about the letter ij, as the Dutch alphabet doesn't differ from the Latin alphabet. This is not necessary, as there is one very comprehensive article about this letter: IJ (digraph). If all text about the IJ be removed, then the article would have only a few sentences (which I will list here), and likely be too short for an entire article, so the sentences can get moved to Dutch language.

{{cquote|The alphabet used for the Dutch language is the same as the Latin alphabet.

The C, Q, X and Y occur mostly in words borrowed from other languages, but may also appear in words and names which harken back to older spellings. "Q" is almost always followed by "U" (qu), because nearly every word with a q is loaned from French.

In Dutch, when two vowels are placed next to each other, they automatically form a diphthong: ei, eu, oe, ui, uu, aa, ie, and the IJ (letter) is an actual diphthong as well. Notice that the combinations ae, ai, ea, ue, ia are not used in the common Dutch languages, however these forms may appear in several dialects.

"E" is the mostly frequently used letter in the Dutch alphabet, usually presenting a schwa sound. The least frequently used letters are "Q", "X", and "Y".}}

Would be the only text that remained if the redundant text about the IJ which is included at IJ (letter) would be removed. Salaskan 17:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Support, the IJ is the special thing about the Dutch way of writing things but it isn't a letter! C mon 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to section in Dutch language. I think everything important can be covered there. FrozenPurpleCube 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - we have other alphabet articles on alphabets derived from Latin at :Category:Latin-derived alphabets. Articles such as English alphabet and French alphabet provide meaningful context besides just a standard list, and the Dutch alphabet article also provides context. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The Dutch alphabet (with its IJ) is similarly special as many alphabets in the :Category:Latin-derived alphabets (e.g. the French, German, Italian, Portugese, Finnish, etc.). Either all of these have to be deleted as well, or the Dutch alphabet deserves an article as well. My suggestion would be to discuss this at a higher level; e.g. by mass-nominating all articles at once. Arnoutf 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - What about creating a section for this in Dutch language, and letting Dutch alphabet redirect there? As I pointed out above, when the duplicated information about the IJ is removed, the article consists of only a few sentences. Salaskan 19:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, contains no useful information, the Dutch alphabet is not remarkable compared to the Latin one. Furthermore, much of the information in the article is very questionable: oe, aa, ie, ... are not diphthongs at all (some of the others are), but some more remarkable three-vowel combinations (oei, eeu, ieu) are. Some of the combinations given a non-existing do exist in Dutch (ea = meander, realiteit, ... ia = piano, riant, ...: they form two syllables, but that is not discussed in the article). However, this has nothing to do with the alphabet of course. If kept, the article needs to be almost completely rewritten. Fram 20:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Elkman, the Dutch alphabet is distinct from the Latin alphabet. Carlossuarez46 20:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• How is it? By the IJ? That info is included in the article about IJ, and we can add a sentence to Dutch alphabet saying "The Dutch alphabet is exactly the same as the Latin alphabet, although some think IJ is part of the alphabet as well" (to which Dutch alphabet would redirect). Salaskan 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I see no editors looking at sources in the above. Perhaps that's because the article doesn't cite a single source and editors are performing original research, working out their own theories of human knowledge rather than what the sources actually document. Going and actually looking for sources, I find sources such as the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems ({{ISBN|063121481X}}), which document a distinct Dutch alphabet. Interestingly, the 1878 A new practical grammar of the Dutch language by Franz Ahn documents a Dutch alphabet of 24 letters, as does the 1908 Elements of Dutch by Jan Marius Hoogvliet. Clearly, if editors used some sources, there would be a good article here. That's a matter of cleanup, not deletion, however. Keep. Uncle G 22:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)'
• Keep - the Dutch alphabet is almost the same as the standard Latin alphabet - almost being the operative word. Having a 'ij' instead of a 'y' makes all the difference. The fact that we use the 'y' in loanwords doesn't make it part of 'our' alphabet - just like ñ, ø and the like. That 'ij' is often treated as being 'i + j' is mostly because of practical reasons (electronic sorting for instance). Richard 13:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Please note that this is a deletion debate, not a forum about whether the IJ is a letter or not (which is contested — see the article). 75% of the article is about the status of IJ; that info should be merged into IJ (digraph). Salaskan 22:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Are we to have articles on the alphabet in every language that uses a variation of the Latin alphabet? The only useful content in this article concerns the digraph IJ (digraph), which already has an article. The paragraph on ij should be merged with that and the rest deleted or merged with Dutch language. Peterkingiron 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Elkman. Murcielago 04:39, 4 June 2007 (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.