Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DiLingo

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. Tally: Keep: Dewrad, Assdl, Elemtilas, Grace Note, IJzeren Jan, BenctPhilipJonsson, Phroziac, SamuelRiv. Delete: Ish ishwar, Harmil, Mikkalai, Palmiro, Wile E. Heresiarch, Angr, Cassowary, Almafeta, Mustafaa, Trilobite, JamesBurns, Indrian. Not counting users with fewer than 100 edits, there are 3 keep and 12 delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:09, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] DiLingo

• Delete. This article is about a conlang. I believe that it is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. - User:ish_ishwar 09:52, 2005 July 23
• Keep. This article is about a fairly notable conlang. I believe that it is notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. (although it could do with a lot of work) Dewrad 16:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable language, created as an admitted joke. -Harmil 17:30, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Joke languages, in and of themselves, are not necessarially nonnotable; see Europanto. Almafeta 05:28, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable. mikka (t) 18:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable, vanity. Palmiro 18:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: joke, vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 19:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable conlang. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:59, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Felix the Cassowary 01:08, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable per CONLANG. Almafeta 01:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep, I feel a strong sense of outrage at all this unexplained witch-hunt against artistic conlangs. Assdl 14:56, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. As a conlanger, and much as I would like to make public the art of conlanging to the greatest extent possible, I really don't see the need for grammatical treatises and descriptions of individual conlangs here on the Wikipedia. There is already a good Wikipedia article, Artistic language, which should serve as a central locus for this particular art form and has already got a quite a long list of conlangs there. I think it vèry meet and right for conlangers to link to their own pages or to some other conlang oriented source, if they wish to do so. I wouldn't create a Wikipedia article for any of my conlangs, even though at least one of them ìs "notable" per these criteria, and if I found one, I'ld delete it for the reasons stated. Elemtilas
• Weak Keep -- having found and read the deletion policies, I have to reconsider my opinion. I still don't think most conlangs warrant individual articles, but they are works of art and as such should not necessarily be removed simply because some people don't get the artform or can't think of anything better than personal attacks against the artists that create languages. Anyone who wants to create such an article on a conlang should be responsible enough to really consider whether this piece of artwork warrants an individual and unique article of its own. If possible, this article should be merged with Constructed languages or Artistic languages or Ill Bethisad. Elemtilas
• Keep. Harmless. See others for more or less reasoning, depending on how reasonable you think it is. Grace Note 05:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, nonvanity. DiLingo is the representative of the humorous conlang type. For the rest: couldn't agree more with the previous speaker. --IJzeren Jan 06:05, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, nonnotable. Only 650 ghits for an Internet-based project! - Mustafaa 11:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Nonnotable conlang. — Trilobite (Talk) 19:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep.BenctPhilipJonsson 19:28, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User has no other edits but voting for keeping conlangs.mikka (t) 19:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn conlang. JamesBurns 04:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep Border line notable. 437 google hits for "dilinguo language". Being a conlang does not immediately make everything unnotable. --Phroziac (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Does not meet the high bar of notability required for a conlang. Indrian 20:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. After reading through the deletion policy in its entirety, it seems clear that this article has a place here. SamuelRiv 17:24, 27 July 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.