Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interslurf

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - deleted - SimonP 22:42, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interslurf

Delete. Conlang which is still under construction. Vanity/promotion. Made up by teenager as stated in article I've speedied yesterday. Bringing it here now. Mgm|^(talk) 11:24, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Vanity and useless. Sarg 14:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. What makes this so different from Esperanto or the Klingon language?
  • This vote above by Tp640871, creator of the article. The difference should be crystal clear. Esperanto has 2 million speakers (a minority, 200-2000, of them natives). Klingon language has been heard by much more than 2 million people in Star Trek. Same reasons are valid for Quenya and Leet. Nobody knows Interslurf. Sarg 16:35, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like we're in for another round of conlang vanity articles. -- Cyrius|✎ 20:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
• There is no evidence that, outside of the author, anyone at all speaks or writes this made up language, let alone there being printed dictionaries for it and works written in it. Unverifiable. No secondary or even primary source materials are cited. Original research. Delete. Uncle G 21:45, 2005 May 28 (UTC)
• Delete, YAMC (yet another minor conlang). --W(t) 00:54, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
• Delete Xcali 01:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
• Exslurf. Or whatever the word is for delete. Original research; conlang with no known speakers. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 17:05, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.