Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comunleng 2

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. – ABCD✉ 02:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comunleng

This article was proposed for deletion in May, but after a VfD that made me shake my head in despair there was no consensus. This is a non-notable conlang ("known by an only guy" according to ArnoLagrange) that has managed to sit on Wikipedia and become spread around the internet in mirrors and apparently by other self-promotion. Part of the reason people objected to the suggestion that it was original research last time around was that there are three interwiki links, though people didn't seem to appreciate that it's possible to create articles worthy of deletion in multiple languages. The French and Spanish versions of the article are extensive but have unanswered questions about such things as just how significant this language is on their talk pages. After the last VfD func put various questions on the talk page relating to verifiability and notability. These have not been answered. This article has sat around for far too long and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Delete. — Trilobite (Talk) 06:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

• Delete, nn/vanity. -Sean Curtin 06:30, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Already survived one VfD, not enough time has passed since last one. Almafeta 06:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • What does that have to do with it? The last VfD was a spectacular example of faulty logic and failure to read what was being said. Do you have any real argument for keeping this article? Can you verify the facts in it? Can you establish its notability? — Trilobite (Talk) 06:49, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Your disagreement with the result of the previous VfD is not a reason to keep nominating it until you get the result you want. --Malathion 06:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This is the second nomination, after a gap of a few weeks, so it's not as if this is going up every week. Any chance of answering the very reasonable questions posed by func about verifiability and notability? — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Your complaint comes down to wanting it deleted, being disappointed in those who didn't delete it in the previous VfD, and relisting it after some time has passed. Unless you have evidence of fraud in the previous VfD, or a significant amount of time has passed (3 months minimum) without update or expansion, pages shouldn't be relisted on VfD. Almafeta 07:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • Could you point me to the three month rule please? I see you also invoked this mysterious policy on the talk page. And no I am not alleging fraud in the previous VfD, just an odd and surprising result that needs confirmation. — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
      • There is no "three month rule". I once nominated an article for deletion twelve hours after the previous VfD had closed, with no changes having been made to the article page, on the grounds that the circumstances that had lead to the article being kept had changed. The page was deleted with no outcry about "too soon". --Carnildo 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Almafeta. --Malathion 06:58, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with Trilobite that the last VfD was a disgrace. I agree that this article should be removed. I could not in good faith vote to delete this article at this time. We should not be dipping into the well again because we don't like the first taste. This should apply to any consensus decision, by the way: changes to CSD, RFA, anything. It's bad form, and weakens respect for "process". A four month moratorium sounds reasonable to me. brenneman^(t)(c) 07:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• The nature of a Wiki is that anyone can modify anything at any time in any way. There is no logic to a 4 month lock after modification: it runs counter to how this 'place' works. -Splash 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Whoa! I've been misunderstood before, but never so egregiously! (I blame all my problems on poor communication. Just never on my poor communication.) I was suggesting that when consensus in a vote has been reached, that that vote not be re-introduced again for four months. And before anyone whips out "show me the policy" of course it's not policy. If you don't feel bound by a vote you didn't participate in, Splash, does that mean you don't recognize as policy anything you didn't vote on? (That's a rhetorical question.) Pacific Sunwear was kept by a 7 to 1 vote and you voted keep. So imagine Nova Cygni thinks this was a "spectacular example of faulty logic" and nominates it again in four weeks. And imagine that by some crazy coincidence everyone was on wikibreak but for a bunch of rabid surf-short haters. When you'rE back from the beach and find PS gone, you'd feel cheated by the system. Justifiably. brenneman^(t)(c) 15:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Whoa! What part of "after a VfD that made me shake my head in despair there was no consensus" do you not understand? There was no consensus in vote reached. Why do you compare it to a vote that ended in a 7 to 1 to keep? Quale 17:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• By the way, I responded on your talk page, but you probably spotted that already. -Splash 17:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• There's a problem with this "4 month rule", and that is it's open to abuse by people who want to keep an article. Let's say I write an article on Origami chocolate and manage to convince just enough people its a real thing so that it just barely misses consensus to delete. It looks like that vote was a fluke and it will be deleted when it comes up for a vote again. So I nominate it in 3 months, and it again evades deletion because "it's last vote was not 4 months ago". Now it has another 4 month reprieve. Again in 3 months I nominate it, etc. This process goes on forever, and my travesty of an article on chocolate origami stays in Wikipedia. -R. fiend 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. Obviously if any keep voters can verify the information in this article or establish the notability of the language I'll be happy to vote keep myself. I just don't see that happening somehow. Am I missing something here? Is this language so ubiquitous as to be immune from the need to provide evidence of its significance? — Trilobite (Talk) 07:26, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable. No proof it's used by anyone but it's creator. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete vanity/unverifiable. Interwikis just show people translated it because its there. Morwen - Talk 09:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable and unverified. I do not feel bound by a previous VfD in which I did not participate. -Splash 14:29, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, unverifiable. Radiant_>|< 14:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as I respect decisions made by consensus, even when I do not agree with them. Even when I think that they are really really dumb. brenneman^(t)(c) 15:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • But there wasn't a consensus last time, there was a lack of a consensus either way. Morwen - Talk 16:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this matter has already been decided jamesgibbon 16:03, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's very wiki to maintain that once a vote has been conducted and it ends in no consensus (there was certainly not a consensus to keep last time, it just defaulted to keep), that an article must be kept for all time and the matter must be considered settled once and for all. Common sense surely dictates that where there are sensible reasons, and you don't do it constantly, it's okay to reopen the debate about an article's inclusion, particularly when simple requests like providing one source other than stuff that has itself been pulled from Wikipedia go unfulfilled. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't give a hit about the last VfD. A bad result last time does not justify a bad result this time. -R. fiend 16:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as per my commentary during the first vfd and my comments on the talk page. I understand and appreciate the above comments concerning consensus, ie: it is possible to abuse our system by repeatedly placing an article on VFD. However, this isn't about the VFD process, it is about what Wikipedia is all about. The issues regarding verifiability and original research are at the core of our ability to maintain a neutral point of view, ie: to give undue coverage to a language virtually no one has heard of is to allow Wikipedia to be used as an advertising platform. I think the Wikipedian who wrote the original article was perfectly aware that by placing his creation on Wikipedia, it would be copied to dozens of mirrors, floating lists of conlangs, etc. We are not here to establish the notability of the things we write articles on: they have to already be established. func(talk) 16:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just because the article previously survived a VfD vote doesn't mean that that error shouldn't be corrected as soon as possible. Non-notable, original research. Quale 17:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It defaulted to keep last time after no consensus based largely on some flimsy claims. Several people voted to keep because it has interwiki links... well, the Spanish version (the only other one I can read) is longer, but it too fails to address any claims this language has to relevance outside the personal dabblings of its creator. It's not surprising that a conlang has interwiki links; conlangers are likely to be also speakers of several natural languages. This is not like the repeated GNAA VfD, which received a good deal of attention and roughly 100 votes and still arrived at no consensus; this got comparatively little attention, and many outstanding concerns from last time were not addressed.

Of the 6 Keep votes last time, three were based on its having interwiki links. One makes the claim that "conlangs are a special case", not backing it up with any reasoning. One is from an anonymous user claiming that it is a "well-recognized auxlang name"; when challenged, produced a Wikipedia mirror as more evidence of its existence. The last claimed it was a userful article even if the subject was not widely known -- taking the position that all original research should stay if the articles are good?

I don't care about Comunleng; I just want to make the case that the renomination is not out of process (and yes, I will kick the WP:ASS of anyone who renominates GNAA anytime soon), and that the previous default keep should not be a reason to dismiss this nomination entirely. This is the sort of article Wikipedia:No original research was meant to provide justification for deleting; there's a conlang Wikicity here for just such things. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 17:48, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. This is an example of where, if the process fails, it should be examined and invoked again, once the failure is noted and corrected. jglc | t | c 17:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable, only argument to keep is spurious. Kept by no consensus default is not an indefinite reprieve. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverifiable — mendel ☎ 20:35, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep — unverifiable, but abuse of VfD. "No consensus" results are not "errors" to be "corrected". I agree with Almafeta and brenneman. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is making the case that in general, "no consensus" results are errors to be corrected, and I agree with the default to keep where the community is genuinely split. But sometimes we come to no consensus based on faulty or incomplete information—why shouldn't we be able to correct that within a reasonable timeframe? I believe sufficient time has passed since the last VfD for any evidence regarding its verifiability to be presented, and it has not been. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  Agree completely with Mindspillage. And if it's unverifiable, how can its inclusion be justified except on bureaucratic grounds concerning VfD? — Trilobite (Talk) 20:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable conlang. --Carnildo 21:02, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Absence of cites suggests original research/vanity. Article and Google have no information about number of native speakers, how it is taught (for non-native speakers, and for the standardization of native speech), how to obtain a comunleng dictionary (suggesting one does not exist). Spanish Wikipedia article contains little information not included in this one except for tables of words - still with no cites - meaning we can't import some saving tidbit from there to this article. Finally, I just checked my univeristy library's online journal collection. A search in Forum for Modern Language Studies revealed 0 results for comunleng, but 432 for constructed language. A search in Language Variation and Change and all other journals by the Cambridge University Press, including the Journal of Linguistics and Language in Society revealed 0 results for Comunleng - but 159 for Esperanto, 8000 for constructed language, 13 for "constructed language", and 21 for "invented language" - oh, and 46 for Klingon. Applied Linguistics has 0 results for comunleng, but 1 for "constructed language" and 2 for esperanto. No citations here or in the interwiki items. Google results are squat. No indication of any legitimate quantity of speakers, nor of a historic body of speakers whose use of the language was repressed and caused the language's extinction (as with natural languages of aborginal peoples). No scholarly interest. No validity to this article, its deletion is required. The Literate Engineer 21:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Conlangcruft. Just because there was a no consensus vote doesn't mean that it deserves to stay. ral315 23:16, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, POV, as evidenced among other signals by the fact that the article begins by responding to purported (unsourced) criticisms before providing, seemingly as an afterthought, any information about the language. The extensive discussion in this and the previous VfD should not obscure the fact that this is not even a close call. -EDM 23:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Original research, nonnotable. It's also POV conlangcruft, but that's not a reason for deletion. - Mustafaa 01:26, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree in part and should have been clearer - the POV alone is not a reason for deletion, it was a criticism of the article as it stood. However it's an interesting question how to replace the POV with verifiable neutral information when the subject is inherently unverifiable, being apparently someone's unpublicized and undiscussed (let alone analyzed) invention. My personal view (irrelevant to this discussion) is that a conlang is inherently more interesting than lots of other kinds of thought experiments, but until the language achieves notability by being known to somebody besides its creator, this isn't the right place to publicize it. -EDM 02:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete My google searches show few signs of notability when removing wikipedia itself. All votes for keep cite, not sources of notability or logic on the article, but instead that the previous VfD that resulted in 'no conensus'. Wikibofh 02:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV original research. JamesBurns 04:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this and all nonnotable conlangs. Conlangs are just large-scale neologisms: they have to become widely used and recognized (like Esperanto) before being encyclopedia-worthy. Wikipedia must establish some guidelines on the notability of includable conlangs. --Angr/_{t?k t? mi} 07:42, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. NN, vanity, and what do I care that it's been voted on before? --Calton | Talk 02:43, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Calton and others may not care, but I do. The three-month rule may be informal, but is a mechanism that helps keep VfD from becoming even more overloaded with gripes about prior decisions. We need consistent due process. I don't care if the full text of the article is "poop", if it manages to survive VfD, it lives to be improved for a time, barring an appeal against the admin for a loony ruling. Xoloz 15:41, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Would you really want an article reading "poop" to stay in wikipedia for 4 months based on a stupid principle? You must not care much for the contents of wikipedia then. I'm sorry but sometimes votes are skewed by incomplete information, and when new information is brought to light it makes sense to readdress the issue. Three months is a very long time. Now, assuming this is kept because people are voting purely on the previous vote not on the actual article, would we have to wait 3 months from its original nomination or three months from this one? See my comments above. -R. fiend 16:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
    • If an article actually said "poop", it wouldn't survive VfD; and if it did, I would edit it to make the best content possible under a bad heading -- I did this for Normative legal thought which survived despite me. The three-month period would count from the original vote, assuming VfD's before the elapsed time were called invalid by the admin closing. Xoloz 17:05, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
      • It almost certainly wouldn't survive VfD, but hell, I've seen things get "lost in the shuffle" or whatever that didn't get any real attention. A couple partisan trolls voting keep can skew the process, and it is possible (albeit highly unlikely) that their actions could result in a default keep for even the shittiest of articles, including "poop". If that unlikely event did happen, would you really defend the article on a technicality? Even if there was no real "improvement" to be made? Let's talk common sense instead of policy. We're rational human beings here. Can you honestly say this article should be kept on its "merits" alone? -R. fiend 20:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
        • My common sense tells me that it is so much better to let one stupid article (that no one but the author will ever look up) live here with a "totally disputed" tag for a month and half, than to establish a precedent that articles can be reopened on Vfd sooner. This precedent is the surest way to have VfD hit 200 articles/per day before 2006. Xoloz 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
          • Why is it an inherently bad thing for VFD to hit 200 articles a day? Doesn't it just reflect that people are determining 200 articles a day to be deletion-worthy? If they've got a valid reason for judging the article that way... problem strikes me as more one with the article writing and editing than with the VFD process. The Literate Engineer 00:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
            • • Assuming the number of complaints now about the process at 100/day (and the CSD debate) I imagine that double that volume would cause enormous complaint. Since the Wikipedia solution seems to be to add to CSDs to reduce volume, I could also imagine such an upsurge contributing ultimately to more bureaucracy. Normally, VfD's are very accurate at screening out crap, but when they fail, better to abide with them, then to propose other solutions which either increase the risk of VfD expansion, or cause the proliferation of regulation, or both. An extra 90 days for a stupid article is simply not damaging enough to merit unbalancing the VfD process. Xoloz 03:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
      • This is madness! Can't you see this? The article is totally unverifiable and non-notable, but you'd rather go exactly by the book (the book in your head, since the three month rule isn't policy at all) and spend your time rules-lawyering and arguing about procedure so you can preserve it. If you're so keen on keeping it, how about providing a reference for the information in it that doesn't originate with Wikipedia, and finding something that indicates it's a notable topic? I honestly cannot see why you would want to keep this article. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
        • See comment immediately above. This isn't madness or legal formalism -- it is holding the line against a VfD nightmare. If we have to live with a stupid article lurking in the unseen shadows for 90 days, so be it. Xoloz 22:40, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
          • • Note also that, even if this debate ends in deletion, the Keep votes here serve a purpose; at least a sizable portion of members care about process, and this knowledge helps deter frivilous re-VfD on articles that are much closer calls than this. Xoloz 04:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - wow, I'm turning into a deletionist today ;) No evidence that this even exists, except in the mind of the creator. If anyone provides links or citations to the contrary, I might change my vote. Sam Vimes 20:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete CryptoDerk 23:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:05, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I don't believe in listing and relisting things for vfd over and over again, as I said when I voted keep for GNAA. However, two vfds is hardly outrageous or uncalled for. I also think the fact that I've seen zero evidence that anyone uses or even knows about this language beyond its creator and Wikipedia. That trumps any concerns about relisting and it troubles me that so many people are so unconcerned that this thing barely exists. Gamaliel 05:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Note: Neither the Spanish nor the French wikipedia articles have come up for deletion, and in fact, the English wikiarticle was referenced in the Spanish talk page when there were POV issues on the Spanish page. Almafeta 07:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that has any bearing on the English Wikipedia. Other language Wikipedias have their own policies. Evil Monkey∴Hello 08:12, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Referencing the English wikiarticle for the Spanish one was as much an inappropriate citation as referencing the Spanish article here is. The difference between self-referencing in an article and referencing another wikiarticle is nil: both are unverified recursion, and may as well be original research. It's no different than citing a mirror of this article. Only sources that are completely independent from any form of wikipedia whatsoever should be regarded as eligible for being considered valid; I would think that would be obvious enough that it shouldn't need a policy dictating it, though I would be glad to propose such a policy if there isn't one. The Literate Engineer 15:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete due to unverifiability. Nandesuka 20:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Had no vote the first time, and I still don't know anything about these languages and what counts as notable or not. However, while there may or may not be a wikipolicy or wikiguideline about wait periods, I would rather wait a reasonable time (a few months) to delete. Despite Trilobite's dramatic invective, this page is not harming the wikiproject in a significant way, and we will be none the worse for wear if this survies VfD for ninety turns around our central axis or so.--Tznkai 22:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Sorry about the dramatic invective. Some of the comments made in support of this article have caused me wikistress because they have all been complaints about process and no one has come forward with evidence of verifiability or notability. I have to say to you as I've said to others, provide some external source for what's in the article and I'll be happy to vote keep myself. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't have any proof of its notability one way or the other. I see this as an issue of comparitive good and ills. On one hand, removing this article is probably the right thing to do as far as our notability notions and WP:NOT. That having been said, having any sort of precedent that any VfD can be rendered "invalid" is dangerously close to anarchy, another violation of WP:NOT. As this article is not sufficeintly distructive to the wikipedia project, I do not believe it is worth the risk of starting a precident for VfD revotes/recounts.--Tznkai 00:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be using Wikipedia for self-promotion. A few verifiable citations establishing Comunleng's status would be enough to sway my vote. No Comment on the practice of renominating articles. This does appear to be a valid candidate for deletion. Dystopos 23:34, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• (conditional) Delete. Hmmm, I think that notability still hasn't quite made it as an official deletion criterion. I also don't like the concept of re-vfd. Even so: an article does have to provide some kind of reference, of course! - This vote is conditional: If one or more external references with a description of the langauge are linked to or are proven to exist (in dead tree format, perhaps) at time of closing, read this as a vote to Keep instead. Kim Bruning 00:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

• There appears to be no argument regarding this article's merit for inclusion. The only open point is what the appropiate process for inconclusive VfDs is. In the absence of affirmative arguments about merit, I suggest we don't need anything further about its obvious crapitude.
• All of the keep votes are based upon concerns about abuse of VfD. The mosr recent GNAA nomination was in fact about respect for the process, about insuring that the standards were maintained. In this instance there was no irregularity, just disagreement. If even half of the people who voted keep before come back and vote keep here, we're again at no consesus. What will you do then, Tri? Wait another four weeks and try again??
• I'm willing to change my vote to delete iff:
  • Trilobite places this message on the talk page of every user that voted keep in the previous VfD: As there was no clear consensus in Comunleng's previous VfD, it has been nominated again. Please see Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 for comments.
  • Following that, it can be show that over half of those users have logged on.

brenneman^(t)(c) 00:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• In light of point one, though, I wonder why the process matters. I.E., in the absence of affirmative arguments, does that not obligate us to repeat the deletion process until such time as an affirmative argument about merit is produced or the article is successfully deleted? Whether we wait 4 weeks between nominations, 4 months, or 4 years, all of the first bullet will remain true in the absence of affirmative arguments or changes to the article's content that meet, for instance, the requirements set forth by func - which would constitute an affirmative argument for keeping it. What makes a 4 week interval disrespectful or abusive of the VFD process, but not a lengthier one? An article that is infused with "obvious craptitude" has obvious craptitude, regardless of the time at which it is discussed, the number of edits between nominations, or any other consideration not related to the content of the article and the standards for an acceptable article. I believe voting to keep or delete an article based on the results and date of a previous VFD is what constitutes abuse of the VFD process. The process exists to judge the article's content in its present form and, if the present form is unacceptable for Wikipedia, to determine the proper remedy: merge, redirect, delete, move. Either this article is or is not acceptable; if a user judges it unacceptable but votes keep, that is abuse. If a user judges it acceptable but votes delete, that is abuse. If a user judges it unacceptable and in light of that nominates it for deletion, as Trilobite has, that's proper use of the process.

That said, I will place those notices, though I believe it will be a repeated travesty if this article is kept a second time. The Literate Engineer 00:59, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised you have placed notices on the talk pages of those who voted to keep last time while not notifying those who voted to delete. Would you consider doing this? It seems very unfair to only tell one side about it when the others would probably appreciate the opportunity to voice their opinion a second time. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Will do, Trilobite. I actually don't believe any notices should be given, but you're right that they should be given to all concerned parties if given at all. I feel like I'm participating in meatpuppetry, and I really regret (and wish I could take back) the original notices I gave last night.The Literate Engineer 23:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• That was a serious oversight on my part. You are correct, it is inappropiate to notify only those who voted keep. Thank you for that. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• I must object most strenuously to one user thinking he can hold the VfD to ransom. If you want something done around here on the Wiki, do it yourself. Don't go demanding that other users do it for you. Your vote is no more (and no less) important to the process than anyone else's. If you want to vote keep because of the reasons you give above, that's fine, but don't go demanding that the rest of us do things to placate you. -Splash 02:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• And, you seem to think there is some lack of clarity over inconclusive VfDs. There's not: they are kept unless there is a "rough consensus" to delete. Then, they can be renominated anytime someone feels like it. -Splash 02:52, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Held to ransom? Did my vote somehow become really important and I wasn't notified? Stating conditions upon which you'll change your vote is almost standard practice: I'll vote "keep" if (this article is expanded or the other one is deleted or its notability is proven to me). Look closely that last one. Isn't that, to use your word, "demanding", that others commit some action to "placate"? I'm also puzzled by your repeated misinterpretations. I state I think "we should wait four mounths between VfD nominations", your response is about "locks on editing articles". I raise "how long is appropiate between nominations", your response adresses " no consensus means keep". I'm left with several possibilities: Either you aren't reading my comments before you respond, you are failing to understand my intent (which could be my fault), or you are being deliberate. This questions was raised when Trilobite func first stated he was going to re-nominate (see Eventually Back to VfD) so it should some as no suprise now. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:32, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Voting delete-unless-made-better is quite different. It (in my case, anyway) usually means that I don't think the article can be made into a keepable one, but I am not sufficiently knowledgeable of the area to verify this fact to my own satisfaction. I mean to encourage others to help out who know where to look for information. Your condition here, however, has nothing at all to do with content and is something you could just go and do and yourself rather than expecting that others will do it for you just because you say so. As for my "no consensus means keep" response, this was because you said "The only open point is what the appropiate process for inconclusive VfDs is", and the appropriate process is keep. -Splash 16:09, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm starting to doubt my ability to form english-like sentences. If it were not the default that a VfD without strong consensus was a de-facto keep, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we? From the context of this discussion, a reasonable person would read that sentence as "The only open point is what the appropiate [time until renomination] process for inconclusive VfDs is". Again, either we are not communicating well or these straw-man arguments are an attempt to divert. brenneman^(t)(c) 04:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It seems that to me that Wikipedia's rules state that if there is no consensus, the default is to keep the article. If there are people who are unhappy with this, and keep proposing deletion whenever they have failed to get something deleted, this is an abuse of the VfD process, as it simply is an attempt to try to wear out the patience of those who have voted to keep in a previous VfD. -- BRG 18:53, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • "Keep proposing deletion" is an odd way to describe it. It was proposed once before and several weeks later has been put up again. Have you actually read the article? Have you read the comments on its talk page? Have you read the previous VfD? Have you read the arguments set out on this page? Can you provide a single source external to Wikipedia that verifies the content of the article or establishes its notability? Would you rather Wikipedia was full of nonsense than permit a second VfD after a decent interval for an article that no one has shown to be encyclopedic? It does seem this way. — Trilobite (Talk) 20:33, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I did a Google search, which gave me 505 hits, of which 229 are in English [1]. The first website listed is the Spanish Wikipedia. The second, called Language Maker, lists the main website for the language organization is at the Spnaish Wikipedia. [2] Most of the other sites I found are Wikipedia mirrors and other sites that pretty much copy ours. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Wow, wouldja just look at this page. Just judging by volume of comments anyone would think this was one of the weightiest and most significant articles on WP. It's just somebody's little article on their own personal conlang. I voted delete (at least I think I did, it seems a long time ago), but really, people. Is this the hill we want to die on? -EDM 23:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I thought it was an open-and-shut case myself. — Trilobite (Talk) 23:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - unverified, and certaintly unnotable. I've seen no evidence presented that gives any hint that this is verifiable, all of the keep votes thus far have been keeping because of the VfD proccess, not over the merits of this article -- Joolz 01:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (I voted Delete the last time this came up, just got a notification of this current vote.) I agree with func above. Wikipedia reports on things already notable in the outside world. It's not an advertising portal for non-notable things. (Non-notable does not mean "bad", it just means not notable.) Note that I would not vote to delete articles on conlangs like Ceqli and Slovio for which one can show the existence of some kind of community of people, going back a number of years, who have an interest in the language. If this can be shown in the article (I don't think it can, but who knows, maybe someone can prove it somehow) I would change to a weak keep. Cam 03:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Joolz -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Conditional Delete The time that has passed between the VfD's should have been time spent putting together arguments for inclusion, or gathering evidence of the language's existence outside of Wikipedia. I don't like repeat VfD's (let's try someone until they come up guilty!), but since this has been re-listed, and there's still no evidence, I can't justify a vote to keep. !!If someone comes up with non-Wikipedia evidence of this language before voting closes, change my vote to keep!! --cprompt 00:10, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Keeeping an article we all know to be worthy of deletion to preserve the system is absurd. The system is meant to serve wikipedia, not the other way around, and wikipedia is better off without this article on an unverified, non-notable subject. carmeld1 20:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Actually, Wikipedia wold be better off with clear and consistent way of addressing issues like this one. Hop over to Votes for deletion/Anti-Semitism in Poland for a moment. Whatever happens there, someone is going to be left "shaking their head" at the outcome. How about if that article get re-cycled every four weeks for deletion/undeletion? And how about all the contentious articles about religion and race, why don't we have a go at them once a month as well? This article is a fly-speck, and if it had been simply trimmed back to a verfiable stub and left for six months, there would have been no real harm done. But when we start jacking with the system because we get our knickers in a twist, then there is harm done.The last VfD was conducted properly and closed properly, and even though I think they were idiots, it's insufferable to simply say, "Well, we think that was dumb, so it doesn't count." brenneman^(t)(c) 23:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is, it's back on VfD, whether you like this or not is besides the point. This is an opportunity for the articles supporters to argue why we should keep. So far, not one of them has said why this article is worthy of staying on wikipedia. Every keep vote has complained about the proccess. Renominating this article is not against the rules. I do not see that there was any other option but to renominate, because every article on wikipedia must be verifiable, a fair chance was given on the article's talk page for evidence that the subject can be varied to be submitted into the article. No such evidence was submitted. It is fair and correct therefore, that, considering that there's no evidence of verifiability, that the article be subject to another VfD. No article should be on wikipedia unless it is verifiable. -- Joolz 01:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• The fact of the matter is, it passed one VfD, whether you like this or not is besides the point. This is an opportunity for the articles opposers to argue why we should delete. Every keep vote with concerns about the process is not against the common practice. Your argument fails to address:

1. How closely re-nominating inconclusive votes for consensus affects perception of the process,
2. The possible follow-on effect for other more contentious articles,
3. Why other options were not explored for this article in light of known objections to renomination, and
4. What you would propose is to soon to re-nominate. Would the next day be too soon?

Perhaps it's my eventualist leanings, perhaps it's my love of order, but I strongly believe that more harm is done by removing an article in this manner than by leaving one crappy article around for a few months. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Brenneman, I answer your four questions in this way:

1. Closely re-nominating inconclusive votes for consensus (which does not apply in this case, as the month's time passed does not constitute "closely following") improves perception of the process by allowing the process to do what it exists to do: efficiently dispose of articles that do not belong on wikipedia through an appropriate method, of which deletion, merging, renaming, and redirecting without merger are common choices. It ensures that the appropriate keeping of inconclusive articles is kept as a temporary measure, and forces debate to continue until it is resolved in consensus - either clear consensus to keep or to delete. Indeed, I believe that policy should require renomination of any inconclusive VFD after no later than two to three weeks.

2. The possible follow-on effects are desirable, as more inconclusive VFDs may be revisted. Furthermore, we are setting valuable precedent that inconclusive VFDs, rendered inconclusive due to keep arguments that are quickly shown to be factually false or otherwise faulty (accurate descriptors, I believe, for all the "keep" votes in the original Comunleng VFD) are no different from consensus-to-keep VFDs that are subsequently shown to have been kept on false premises. Finally, we are establishing that articles are to be voted on due to judgement of their content alone, and not due to procedural matters that have no place, I believe, in VFD discussion. I repeat and clarify what I said earlier: to vote keep for this or any other article, for any reason at all, if you believe it does not meet such criteria as verifiability required, no original research allowed, no advertising allowed, or encyclopedic nature required, is a worse abuse of VFD than any renomination could ever be.

3. What other options are there? This is an unsalvagable article. It is vanity about a conlang so unnotable that it is unverifiable to the point of being indistinguishable, in my mind, from a hoax. Three or four reasons all of which the deletion policy defines as grounds for deletion. I can't find anything in this article that belongs on wikipedia.

4. As I see it, as a VFD can be closed after 5 days, then by the same reasoning that 5 days is sufficient time for consensus to be reached and edits that would change an article's status from Deletion Required to Keepworthy to be made, 5 days is sufficient time for new edits to be made prior to a revisiting. I believe inconclusive VFDs are more often inconclusive because of faulty reasoning one way or the other than because the article's contents do not lend themselves to consensus; 5 days allows enough time for those articles whose contents do require some clarification to be edited enough to tip the discussion in the appropriate direction.

Every article and every topic has a fundamental essence. That essence is either Deletion Required or Keepworthy. It is the purpose of VFD to discover that essence with maximum efficiency. If its essence is Deletion Required, our duty as editors is to eradicate the offending article. If its essence is Keepworthy, our duty as editors is to edit and reshape the article until it is someday transmuted to Ideal. Yes, I'm being foolishly metaphysical, but I believe it is wholly inappropriate to allow inconclusive VFDs to stand. They need to be renominated. And in this case, it needs to be deleted, and it did not "pass" anything. Discussion was closed too soon, and the original "keep" votes were never legitimate to begin with. The Literate Engineer 03:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We should judge the article on its merits, rather than argue the process. In the uncommon case that an article gets two nominations in a row, people are likely to just copy their votes from the last one anyway. Radiant_>|< 07:33, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • Wiki pedia is not anarchy either. We have the processes to guide and protect us from abuses and accidents. Again, putting this in perspective, no one here is objecting to another vote in a few months. Wikigods will not strike us down in the next 90 days for a bad article.--Tznkai 00:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I find Radiant's argument compelling. All of our allegience should be toward making the actual encyclopedia as best as it can be. If the policies and procedures lag behind a little bit, what's the harm? If the lack of a renomination waiting period is a problem, address the problem on Wikipedia:Deletion policy, not by voting to keep an article that is nonsense. Dystopos 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A look at Google hits makes it clear to me this created language is not notable, and probably vanity. I would like to ask all of you voted to keep, have you actually ever seen anything written in 'Comunleng'? I haven't. As far as I'm concerned, if there are zero sites on the Internet written in your made-up language your made-up language is not notable. --Fazdeconta 02:13, 20 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.