Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salveto

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 08:13, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This language appears to be a very recent invention. As far as I can see, it has no significance whatsoever, and its web presence is limited to this wiki article and the language's homepage (267 ghits all-in). Besides, the article is extremely short. IJzeren Jan 13:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the 270 Ghits are uses of the word "salveto" in Latin or Italian. Googling for "salveto language" gets 33 Ghits, again mostly uses of the Latin word; I looked at all three pages of hits and found no third-party reference to the language except in Wikipedia mirrors and the "Fallen Tower" conlang list. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agree with above, most of the low google score is misc usage (people's last names, etc.) unrelated to the "language". I counted only 3 unique Google hits related to the language: 2 on its official site and one the wikipedia article. The official site, by the way, has no alexa rank at all. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:33, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN at the moment. If it takes off in any way, a new page can be put up. --Apyule 06:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. To put it bluntly: I don't see that we should have criteria for 'notability', period. Quality of material (as in accuracy, objectivism, etc), lack of advertisement, and keeping meta-articles clean, sure. But deleting something just 'cause it's not popular or it's currently too stubby? No. Saizai 09:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we ignore notability, it's not verifiable without some kind of original research; all the information available about it is from the language's creator. That's what my comments on my vote, above, were about. See Wikipedia:Conlangs/Notability, verifiability, merit, completeness for recent debate on this. --Jim Henry | Talk 11:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Look, Saizai, there are thousands of constructed languages around, most of them are merely sketches that are abandoned by their creators after a short while. We surely don't want entries about all of them, so we have to draw the line somewhere. Now, I tend to be rather inclusive and tolerant, but still I think sóme significance is required. In the case of a conlang that could be: a certain number of users, a book that at least mentions it, some proof that it has evoked discussion in academic circles, or whathaveyou. This language simply doesn't meet any of those standards. --IJzeren Jan 06:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see two points here. First off, I can understand the "verifiability" clause... for most other items on Wikipedia.

HOWEVER, conlangs are in my opinion different in a way that makes this not just unnecessary, but exclusionary. Verifiability by definition is so that you know that the info is good, the thing being written about actually exists as described, etc. With a conlang or other work of art, it is 'self-defining'. If the author posts the conlang, ipso facto, it exists as described. Any talk of "verifying" it - e.g. by others talking about it, etc. - goes solely towards 'notability'.

So that bring up my second point. I don't see reason to exclude things from Wikipedia for notability. If it's small and not particularly interesting, then don't mention it in the main articles, or in the more exclusive "these conlangs are interesting/notable" lists. But there is no reason I can understand not to have an article about it for whatever it's worth, or to not include it on an all-inclusive list. So I only support "notability" for that 'alone': determining what to include in high-level / central articles. (And FWIW, I would support including as an article even sketch conlangs, if there's anything to say about them, so long as they don't cause namespace problems [e.g. colliding with something important] and aren't included on "notable conlangs" lists.) --Saizai 15:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created this article back when I was less familiar with Wikipedia's policies regarding verification and original research. My bad. It looks like the Salveto.net Web-site hasn't been updated since, and an e-mail I sent to its author has bounced. The ideas behind this conlang are very good ones, and it's unfortunate that this project did not take off thus far. --Alex Libman 23:01, August 15, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.