Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babyish languages

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. Postdlf 05:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Babyish languages

Non-notable conlang; not used in professionally published fiction (see talk page), apparently not spoken by anyone but the author and perhaps his family. --Jim Henry | Talk 12:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Dcarrano 15:42, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• Da da da da le le le tttt, burp. Dunc|☺ 19:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable amateur fictlang. — Gwalla | Talk 22:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete non notable conlang. JamesBurns 04:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and condemn nonnotable conlangers to Wiki-Hell! --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Unrelated to the actual Babyish language. Almafeta 07:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What other language has a claim to the name "Babyish"? --Jim Henry | Talk 19:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Some Asian language, less than 100,000 speakers. They're discussing a Babyish Wikipedia over in Meta, and that's pretty much the limit of my knowledge about it. Almafeta 21:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable.--Hello World! 08:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The material looks pretty complete to me, and even if the fiction has not been published entirely "professionally" (does that still matter these days?), it hás at least been published. I'm not saying the language ís notable, but I haven't heard any convincing argument that it's not. Regarding the number of speakers: I'm sick and tired of the constant abuse of that argument in this context; the purpose of an art-lang is NOT to gather a circle of speakers, and therefore, you can NOT judge its success by that criterium. I'm ready to change my vote once more convincing arguments come up. --IJzeren Jan 18:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the fiction has not even been self-published or published in amateur zines. I will not quote the email I got from the author without his permission, but it sounds like the stories exist only in manuscript, and only a small part of the language material and world-building background material has been self-published on the author's web site (and Wikipedia article).

I agree that an artlang need not have actual speakers to be notable. However, it needs to have some evidence of notability - for instance, citations on other artlanger's sites saying they were influenced in their development of Verisimilian by some nifty features found in Babyish; or some other evidence (e.g. mailing list or BBS threads) that, if not actual speakers, it has a significant number of people who are interested in it or influenced by it. If someone created Wikipedia articles for any my own artlangs I would probably vote to delete them. --Jim Henry | Talk 19:41, 15 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.