Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novoslovnica

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Novoslovnica

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

Seemingly non-notable constructed language. Unable to find in-depth coverage. --Non-Dropframe _talk 19:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a young language, but it has been marked rather highly by the people had aquainted with it. Most of them prefer Cyrillic, however. Though it has only one scientific publication now and references from the rest of interslavic community, its number will encrease. The project is very unique because of its accepted purposes. EASocialist (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No academic coverage, no secondary sources, one message board with a post on it. There doesn't appear to be any published books on the topic or evidence that it has been adopted by any sort of community. --Savonneux (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it really should be transliterated as Novoslovnitsa (Новословница), but even that has no article coverage. If the issue is that it's a young language, WP:TOOSOON would apply. Удачи. —Мандичка^YO 😜 22:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May be today it is too soon of course... In autumn the new articles will appear. EASocialist (talk) 05:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's obvious that this article cannot stay, as it is in violation of practically every policy we have (WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NFT, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:SELFCITE, WP:PROMO, etc.). Except for the lack of a single secondary source, even finding primary sources is a problem. A website with a grammar description of the language seems to have vanished, and now grammar tables and the like are hidden in social media like Facebook and VK. Apart from the fact that social media can never be used as sources, the effect is also that this Wikipedia page appears to contain the only grammar overview available on the web. I would find it a pity if it would disappear, therefore I would suggest the author to transfer it to http://wiki.frath.net, a wiki where any conlang can be published. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:16, 6 August 2015 (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.