Talk:Europaio

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Deletion Proposal

[edit] For

Non-notable conlang project, and it appears that the initiator of it himself has put up this article (and put links to it in inappropriate places), so it's also vanity. CRCulver 23:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont think this deserves an article. If its a revival proposal, and not an independent conlang, mention it in the main language article. However, it has some sort of grammar rules of its own, so I added a Category:Reconstructed languages for the moment - Category:Constructed languages doesnt seem correct, if its not invented. Now is not orphan anymore. Miquelrc 81.32.156.60 23:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Against

  1. Conlang project. Doesn't seem to be a conlang, but a revival project of an already reconstructed, dead language, the Proto-Indo-European language from Indo-European studies.
  2. Not-notable project. After a simple Google search, the project doesn't seem to be new nor not-notable for the press, at least in Spain. Following WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and even WP:NOT, I would have recommended a mergeto tag if I were Crculver
  3. Links in inappropriate places. Those incorrect links were immediatly deleted by Crculver, the article needs now proper linking if maintained. I think the deletion initiator himself should look for the right place, as he appears to work with language issues.
  4. "Vanity". A Google search shows that the subject is not new and is discussed publicly in some populated forums, such as Yahoo and Europe United. The initial IP was from Telefonica (Spain), possibly dynamic. Even if the coincidences were more (following WP:VAIN) <<Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — this has created serious problems. Remember that such an accusation may be defamatory. As explained below, an author's conflict of interest by itself is not a basis for deletion, but lack of assertion of notability is.>>

I would personally recommend keeping a different article for this subject, not to merge it with other, more visited (and important) articles. Alternatively the information - if kept - could also be merged:

If Mr. Culver or any other still want to delete, please use Article for Deletion and discuss it further. In my opinion, linguist editors should preferably work in merging or otherwise changing this information, and keep in mind that (following Wikipedia:Deletion policy) <<XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked, whose perspective is against ones beliefs, or which is not yet presented neutrally. Using XfD as a "protest strategy" in an editorial or NPOV debate is generally an abuse of process and the article will usually be speedy kept.>>

Pablo 23:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/u/r/Talk%7EEuropaio_efd9.html"