Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages/Edit wars and deletions/Archive

An article that you have been involved in editing, Essays on Language Design, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essays on Language Design. Thank you. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted under CSD, not per an AFD. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Lingua Franca Nova‎, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingua Franca Nova‎. Thank you. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Ill Bethisad, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Bethisad. Thank you. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taneraic was deleted on 11 November after very little discussion.

AfD supports. Listed for deletion review requesting speedy relist for AfD; go discuss there.

Also, please sign your comments (4 tildes at the end). Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV ended in endorsement. Essentially: they want some sort of evidence for notability or reliable source before relisting. Since I'm totally unfamiliar with this topic, someone else will have to do that if they care. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 09:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Richard Kostelanetz, Charles Bernstein & Marjorie Perloff all thought it a "notable" project.

An article that you have been involved in editing, David Salo, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Salo. Thank you. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 04:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closed with no consensus to delete; defaults to keep. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Sambahsa-mundialect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sambahsa-mundialect. Thank you. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaand it's gone. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kēlen, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kēlen (2nd nomination). Thank you. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 07:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After an almost summary discussion, involving no more than six editors, none of whom appeared to have any knowledge of conlanging, and taking place in less than a day Kēlen has been deleted. The grounds for nomination were given as WP:NFT, which given the respect with which Kēlen is held amongst the conlanging community, was practically an admission of ignorance from those concerned. I have politely asked the administrator who performed the deletion to restore the page.

--PeteBleackley 09:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion supports Pete's claim. I just started a Deletion Review - go there to discuss its undeletion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review has completed and resulted in a relist for deletion. Discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kēlen (2nd_nomination) within the next five days. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 07:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD 2 closed: "The result was Delete without prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. If this is a truly notable conlang, then one or more of the peer-reviewed linguistics journals should have articles about it, which would obviously satisfy WP:V & WP:RS. — Caknuck 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)" Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When and why was Translation relay deleted? I can't find any AfD/VfD discussion archive for it. Was it merged into another article?

I've run across some additional information about non-conlang translation relays (in Douglas R. Hofstadter's Le Ton Beau de Marot, chapter 12) and would have added it if the article were still around. --Jim Henry 17:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently it was PRODed in March and no one contested it within 5 days. Maybe a case for deletion review, if you have a new reliable source? PubliusFL 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baza's notability is contested. I deleted copyright violations and made a stub out of it. From what I gather, Baza is an attempt to describe a least common denominator of most Esperantidoj.

It was PRODed yesterday, which I contested with my edit. Now perhaps an expert could take a look at it and see whether it is notable enough to remain (the motivation certainly is), and continue the discussion. --85.181.9.113 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 June 18

Vorlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

An international auxilary language that does not meet the notability guideline. All references in the article are self-published. Although the article attempts to assert notability by noting the author of the language was the editor of a journal, the journal is almost completely ignored by academics (3 ghits on the title among edu sites). [1]

The best reference to either the journal or the language that I could come up with is from the journal Language Problems & Language Planning, Volume 27, Number 2, 2003, pp. 155-192. Three lines in a 38-page paper describing scholarly resources in interlinguistics say:

From the newsletter published in 1991 on the project for a planned language called Vorlin by Richard Harrison (Orlando, USA), the Journal of Planned Languages was born. From 1992 to 1996 some 24 issues appeared.

This reference is not enough to pass WP:N. Delete Aagtbdfoua 14:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A couple other comments. First, note that articles archived from the "Journal of Planned Languages" are archived at www.rickharrison.com, which emphasizes the self-published nature of these sources. Second, this article has been previously prodded and recreated. - Aagtbdfoua 14:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt. Nonnotable made up language. Lacks references showing it is of significance to other than the creator of it. Edison 17:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: AFD tag did not appear to have been placed on article itself; I have done this now. (Note: I am *not* the nominator). Fourohfour 18:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake. Thanks for catching that. - Aagtbdfoua 19:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No reliable sources. The whole project has the air of self-publication. This article was deleted by prod in January 2007 and then re-created. EdJohnston 20:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No nontrivial mention in reliable third-party sources to establish notability. -- Schaefer (talk) 21:42, 7 June 2007 (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.

Just in case anybody has missed it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toki Pona (2nd nomination). See, Toki Pona is a red link now. Mithridates 21:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ongoing problem on Wikipedia, but it's not a problem with Wikipedia (if one accepts that the encyclopedic and notable rules are rules). Conlangs have to be really, really, really major in order to have scholarly articles written about them individually -- there are natlangs that are not particularly notable within the topic of natlangs that will be readily written up in some journal or other, and become notable. Conlangs that are highly notable within the topic of conlangs are rarely written up by any 3rd party at all, whether they're academically ground-breaking, philosophically and/or pedagogically useful, part of a larger (and notable) constructed world, or whatever else. Fighting to keep individual conlangs on Wikipedia is fighting the losing battle of getting the WP elite to break or drop the rules that keep them at the top of the heap. As much as I earnestly "fight for the right to conalng", I'd honestly favor having a list/table with refs for individual langs on the main Conlang page, as well as links to Frath and the other auslander wikis. Paul.w.bennett 12:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At 5th may 2007 when I reintroduced the Vorlin, this Portal had no red links. Now its number is growing, soon somebody will want to delete again the Vorlin, this is illogical. Pasqual (ca) · CUT 09:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vorlin had a Template:notability affixed. I deleted it with the following justification:

I deleted the notability-tag. Vorlin is featured in Portal:Constructed languages, itself a featured portal. If somebody challenges the notability of this article, he should first discuss his objections in Portal talk:Constructed languages, before the article gets deleted and re-implemented again and again. A notability-tag here is NOT the right substitute to a discussion; before it can even be considered to be set, the link here should first disappear in the Portal! --85.181.9.113 23:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So hopefully, the proponents of the deletion will go here to discuss their objections first. --85.181.9.113 23:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]