Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toytonic

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. Userfication is available upon request. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-09 10:22Z

[edit] Toytonic

Toytonic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is about a mere private constructed language that is clearly non-notable. N-true 04:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, all content added by a single user, notability not asserted, no ghits whatsoever. Krimpet 04:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is a strong possibility that this article is a hoax, especially with the lack of notability and lack of Google hits (although lack of Google hits is by itself not a good reason for deletion). --Nevhood 04:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No references or origins noted. The hoax worry enhanced by the unexplained name. Notation of numbers is usually a cultural trait, rather than that of a language, leading me to believe this is a collection of notes (see WP:NFT) Shenme 04:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete.I kind of know the author of this article and I can confirm that this is a private constructed language that was only dreamt up a couple of days ago. It's not a hoax. But it's lack of notability does indeed mean it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I told them that when they first created the article. Sorry I don't have a Wikipedia account or anything so I can't sign this comment to lend any credibility to my assertion, but take it for what you will. --211.0.147.241 07:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• 'Keep Hello all. I am the author of this page and of much of the content. I am not thoroughly familiar with the rules of what does and does not constitute a wiki entry. But, my main concern is that this entry is being considered for deletion merely on the basis of age. This is a new language. It's a little older than a few days in concept, planning, and execution but I have only recently began to publicly ask for assistance with the project (outside of a group of enthusiats, linguists and contributors). Now, about Toytonic. Toytonic is the product of an ongoing collaborative effort between linguists and language educators to develop a language that is based on PIE and it's early daughter languages while evolving those systems into a more dynamic language. Toytonic is based on the word roots of PIE and several functional features of other Indo-Eurpean languages. These ancient forms have been modified to place the language at a point that accounts for the evolution from PIE that most linguists agree to be inevitable natural changes (mostly phonetic). Then, the language is structured to be absolute (everything has only one meaning). It should be simply in structure and easily learned in a short period of time. The efforts have resulted in a grammar, basic vocabulary and rules for adding to the lexicon, and some spoken and written speech. The next step will be to compile a larger lexicon with cross-references to English, German, and Spanish. From there an effort will begin to begin establishing a literature through writing and translation. As is stands, the language can be spoken and written, has been and will continue to be. That constitues a language. The entry is not complete (it takes some effort to write this in wiki form so as not to confuse non-linguists). But, even in a non-completed form, there is already more information on Toytonic on wiki than many attested languages. There are also several other constructed, engineered, and even fictional languages with multiple wiki entries. My main point is that Toytonic is no different now than Esperanto, Klingon, or most other constructed languages were in their infancy. And then other people said they should not be considered languages. Today there are large communities of both and even native speakers in each. Shouldn't Toytonic be considered on its merits and not just on the fact that you've never heard of it? -- Drew.ward

• Its merits for the purpose of an encyclopedia have only to do with notability. Since you admit the language is only a fews days old, it cannot possibly meet standards unde WP:NOTE. I urge you to delete this article yourself, or userfy it - since my !vote too is strong delete. --Haemo 11:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Since you put quite much effort into creating of this page, I would suggest you copy the entire article into a sub-page of your userpage (but without linking it from other articles). That way you can improve it further until – as you hope – it becomes much more well-known and elaborated and until you indeed have found linguists that want to work on this project. Also, if Esperanto had been invented 3 days ago, we would delete it as well. The point is that being a few days old makes your language almost by definition non-notable (maybe it will grow famous, in future, though); plus Google doesn't show even one related hit for "Toytonic". — N-true 17:21, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No references or origins noted because this idea was dreamt up a few days ago. The name is a reference to the site on which the idea was first posted. It HAS no merits. The "article" is abuse of Wiki in an attempt to gain credibility (user is posting links to the Wiki entry). The "language", while proclaiming to be a simplification, combines the worst of all linguistic and orthotic ideas. It is as legitimate as Jimmy Wales' degrees in religion. While numerous synthetic languages exist, in natural language terms this one isn't even up to the stage of "meaningful grunting". BadDoggie 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I would be inclined to agree with N-true that the article author should userfy it until it gains notability, but it doesn't seem likely to, especially in the near future. Wikipedia is not a personal web host. I would suggest the article creator look into transwiki-ing this article to a linguistic wiki, or starting his own. —Carolfrog 19:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm surprised nobody else has mentioned this, but this is clearly original research, which is not allowed here. --UsaSatsui 16:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete it may be splendid but no evidence of Notability in the Wikipedian sense, and it all looks like OR. Put it in your user space if you like, but not in Wikipedia NBeale 23:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable original research Ooooooooo 09:56, 7 March 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.