Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kēlen (2nd nomination)

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 without prejudice against recreation with reliable sources. If this is a truly notable conlang, then one or more of the peer-reviewed linguistics journals should have articles about it, which would obviously satisfy WP:V & WP:RS. — Caknuck 00:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kēlen

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

At the DRV,, consensus was to relist. Previous AfD was closed early. Neutral nomination; needs reliable sources for verification to keep. Chick Bowen 04:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources are provided to show evidence of notability. Judging from the article in its current state, the previous deletion verdict looks entirely right to me. Terraxos 04:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. WP:NFT may be a bit too harsh, but the arguments in the first AFD are right. The only source is the creator's own website (WP:SPS). I don't have anything against conlanging or this particular language, so if better sources prove notability, i'll support keeping. Please keep in mind that wikis (such as LangMaker) or mailing lists are not acceptable sources. --Amir E. Aharoni 05:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It won't be speedy deleted. It's already been through a deletion review once. The reason why we give these things five days is so that better sources might emerge--obviously you're right about the category of sources that would be appropriate. Chick Bowen 05:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Restore. Repeating the relevant parts of my list for DR:

• a) Kēlen was developed over years;
• b) Kēlen is well-respected and known within the conlanging community;
• c) Kēlen was featured in a specific talk at the 2nd Language Creation Conference - see [1] - establishing notability among other things.

Also, I would say that I believe that erstwhile claims for "independent sources" to document something are misguided when applied to conlangs, which are in the overwhelming number of cases self-documented by the author. One can argue notability, perhaps, but to do so requires knowledge of the field, and for that, mailing lists and other discussion fora used by those within it *are* relevant and appropriate sources. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 07:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Conlanging is more art than science, so an artificial language is more similar to a painting or a song than it is similar to a scientific. A report on physics or linguistics on a small conference may be a valid source and a valid subject for Wikipedia. But just as you can't write about every painting in every exhibition ever, you can't write about every report on a conlanging conference. Gathering a few people at a university and calling it a conference doesn't automatically make every report that is made there notable. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would agree. But, the field of conlanging is much smaller than that of painting. While not every painting in every gallery in the world is notable, a conlang presented at conference is, simply by virtue of the ratio of frequency / prominence of visibility to availability of venue. Please note though that I was making two arguments - the first, that WP:RS is inapplicable; the second, that WP:Notability is at least partially addressed by its presentation at a conference. There are certainly other metrics of notability - for example, one could look at how frequently it is discussed on conlang related fora. However, I would believe that any reasonable metric for establishing notability would have to acknowledge that the field is a niche one, so one must turn to the conlanging community to evaluate this (in addition, of course, to historical sources, which may be more relevant for some conlangs). Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 10:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This is a cyclical argument. If only a conlanger can assert the notability of a conlang, then it is non notable by definition. Wikipedia is for subjects which are notable to the general public. For conlangs which are only notable inside the conlanging community there's LangMaker.

When this language becomes notable outside the conlanging community, then can it have its own article. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

To use an example you are going to hate, if a Star Trek fan writes an alien language and shows it off at a Star Trek convention, an article about it won't pass an AFD. CitiCat ^♫ 15:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Except that we're not discussing what is notable within Star Trek fandom, but what is notable within the field of conlanging. And Kēlen is - among other things, by being one of the more unusual languages in having no verbs. As for requiring that everything on WP be "notable to the general public", I find that bordering on the absurd; the general public doesn't know or care a whit about nearly all of academics, art, and science. Would you then argue by the same token that we should delete, say, articles about some medical condition known only within the field of neurology, art in the classism period, etc? They are hardly notable to the general public, but they still pass the guidelines as in e.g. Template:Importance Scheme, which clearly accepts the idea that articles can be notable only within their field, yet still worthy of inclusion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Very little known to the general public about Physics or Linguistics, but those two disciplines are inherently relevant to all people, even if they never actually stidy it.

Art is different from Physics: A work of art that is only known to a small community has little relevance for the general public.

The whole field of conlanging is much less notable than painting or music, and even for those two there are severe notability guidelines. Several significant cases of conlangs such as Esperanto, Interlingua, Klingon or Quenya (and some others) crossed over from the small community of their users to the general public. I admit that because of this discussion i read a little about Kēlen and it may pass as an interesting exercise in extremely theoretical generative linguistics; still, only when it is presented at a linguistic conference, it can appear on Wikipedia. Conlanging is not linguistics. --Amir E. Aharoni 09:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It *was* presented at a linguistics conference. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It was presented at a conlanging conference. Having berkeley.edu in the URL doesn't make the website scientific. The relation between linguistics and conlanging is roughly similar to the relation between medicine and chiropractic. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that linguistics, which is of interest to linguistic students (fans?) inherently carries more weight with Wikipedia than Star Trek, which is of interest to Star Trek fans. It's not, even though you may feel the subject is more "important". (By the way, I'm just picking Star Trek at random, the same applies to fans of any other subject) Either way, you need to show how the subject is of interest to anyone outside the specific community. CitiCat ^♫ 20:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that at all; I made no comment on the relative merit of linguistics vs Trekkie/er fandom. I just said that your analogy is inapplicable, because you were giving a notability criterion that crossed categories. Just as it would be inappropriate to say that only parts of fandom that are "notable" are those that are covered at a linguistics conference, it's inappropriate to say that something is notable linguistically by virtue of presented as part of a fandom. Remember, I am arguing that notability should be considered from the perspective of a particular subject or domain - whether that be fandom, Chomskian linguistics, post-Renaissance art, or conlanging. More broadly, I oppose any policy to delete things that are at least somewhat notable to some interesting culture or area of knowledge on the grounds that it is not 'notable' to "the general public". As I said, the general public is ignorant of the vast majority of human knowledge. To have that as one's standard of what ought not be covered here would make calling this an 'encyclopedia' a laughable claim. Note, I *am* agreeing with WP:NFT - just saying that one should determine notability *within* a subject. I believe WP:1.0 agrees. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 08:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I think interest within a community is important, however, I think it would require a higher standard than if it were of interest to people in general. In other words, it would have to be well known to a substantial part of that community, which would give it the possibility of "crossing over". I think it's worth noting that this is not even listed on List of constructed languages. Let's say this, it was discussed at a conference - is there any continuing interest? Is anyone outside of the creator studying or contributing to this on an ongoing basis (and maybe publishing something?). Here's my final summary, and then hopefully I'll shut up - someone created a language, and some people interested in language creation discussed it. And that was it. CitiCat ^♫ 22:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It *is* well known to a majority of the community, I would say. At the least it has strong name recognition as 'the verbless language'. I don't know whether others are contributing to it - TTBOMK Sylvia does not wish to share that prerogative. I do not agree with your implied premise that a language may only be notable if it is either being used by or created by a large number of people. You would not apply the same standard to other forms of art. However, you seem to agree with my premise that, if well-known within the community, it would count as notable... and I believe that's the case. Are we then in agreement on those grounds? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will say that is correct, but a high percentage would have to be aware of it, to the extent that they would know the major details (like you say - they would know it's the "verbless language") without having to look it up. Not just having had heard of it once or twice. (I'm not saying either case is true - I don't know. Just that if you could make a good case for the former I would vote keep). CitiCat ^♫ 12:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If this AfD were extended, that could be done. Given my position within the community, I feel that it would create bias for *me* to post about this; however, you could easily yourself go to CONLANG or ZBB and ask who knows what about Kēlen. I am confident that most people know it and what it is. (I should point out that I oppose WP:N on the grounds discussed well in WP:NNOT, so I think this is entirely superfluous when WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR are satisfied, as they clearly are.) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete here - no notability outside of its respective community. Once it gets an article in a notable (i.e. has an article here) newspaper, magazine, or website, then bring it back. NASCAR Fan24^{(radio me!)} 12:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, IIRC, Langmaker (which according to you is notable, by virtue of having an article here - interesting circularity) has an article about it. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Langmaker is a website devote to the hobby (forgive me if hobby is an incorrect term). Wikipedia's notability requirements say "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Because a conference or website is notable does not at all mean that everything discussed there is notable. CitiCat ^♫ 20:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per Nascar Fan 24. Insufficient relevant references outside its own circle. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle and Nascarfan24. /Blaxthos 16:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It's notable enough for the kind of entity it is; extensive discussion on conlang fora by conlangers other than the creator, and the fact that she was requested by the conference organizers to give a talk on it (she didn't volunteer for it), is evidence of its notability. (This was discussed on the article's talk page, but that seems to be gone -- was it lost when the article was deleted and then undeleted?) --Jim Henry 17:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete and merge - there's no convincing assertion of notability, let alone demonstration of it. But as an exercise in constructing a language without verbs, referenceable to conference paper, it seems like a useful addition to the Constructed language article. Llajwa 19:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep/Delete I do not read any newspapers or magazines, thus there are no so notable ones. You should keep all or delete all. I do not read wikis either so maybe you delete yourself also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 52.129.12.50 (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The sole claim to notability, the Berkeley conference, was sponsored by the ASUC and was mostly attended by students and avocational linguists, so it's certainly not the kind of major scholarly conference that bestows notability on every single presentation. Maybe it does bestow notability on Conlang in general, but that's not under discussion here. ~ trialsanderrors 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It was also sponsored by the UC Berkeley Cognitive Science department. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • That doesn't move it closer to notability. I presented papers to such conferences many times as a grad student. None of them are anywhere near notable. As sole support for notability this is extremely meager. ~ trialsanderrors 17:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Except it's not the sole support. See above discussion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
        • I see nothing there that would go beyond unsupported assertions. ~ trialsanderrors 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. There are conlangs and conlangs, people. Thousands of them! Many of them are merely sketches: a few words, a bit of grammar, one or two sample texts... These are often presented on fora, shortly discussed and later abandoned by their creators and forgotten by the rest. It happens regularly that someone starts a language, and in a very early stage makes a wikipedia article about it. Obviously, we can't have that kind of thing here. Not only because there should at least be a minumum barrier of notability, but also from the conlangers' point of view: if there are two thousands conlangs represented here, nobody can tell anymore which of them are valuable and which of them ain't. For that kind of articles there are other places: Langmaker.com, the Conlang Wiki, etc.
  Kēlen, however, is an entirely different case. The language has been around for years, is extremely well-elaborated, and both the language itself and its setting are pretty unique. As Sai said, the language is very well-known and well-esteemed in the Conlang community. It can safely be said that Kēlen belongs to the Top-10 of best-known Internet-based conlangs.
  Of course, conlanging is an art rather than a science, and therefore shouldn't be treated as if it were a science. It is a small art, I should add: whereas in every street you can probably find somebody who has written poetry or painted something, you will have to look very hard for somebody who has created a language. It's not a way to become famous. Interest from outside the conlanging community is rather limited. Let's face it: a major newspaper won't easily write about the subject, simply because it won't attract readers. But the fact that only few people are interested in the subject surely doesn't make it less notable! Conlanging, as an art, IS notable, but since it can't be compared with writing poetry or creating paintings, we can't just use the same kind of standards for judging it. In the case of conlanging, a small article in a small newspaper, a lecture about it on a conference or something similar is about all the attention a conlanger can get.
  Or is notability just a matter of counting people interested in a subject? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 12:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  a small article in a small newspaper [...] is about all the attention a conlanger can get - Wikipedia is not the place for seeking attention.

  has been around for years - it doesn't make it notable.

  is extremely well-elaborated - it doesn't make it notable.

  both the language itself and its setting are pretty unique - it doesn't make it notable.

  very well-known and well-esteemed in the Conlang community - Avoid weasel words and give me proof. 500-something google hits on conlang mailing lists and a presentation at a "conference" is not that much of a proof. And even if it is notable inside the community, it is still a problem: You see, currently this article is listed in the same category with Klingon languages and Middle-earth languages, which are infinitely more notable. That is very powerful promotion! If Kēlen and Klingon appear at the same category, many readers may deduce that their notability is comparable, which - as i hope you will agree - is not the case.

  In fact, i may reconsider my strict opinions about this issue if you can come up with a thought-out compromise proposal to put very notable languages (such as Klingon) and small artistic languages (such as Kēlen) in different categories. By "thought-out" i mean that this new category won't become a conlangers' playground and a Langmaker clone.

  Unfortunately, this will be very hard. There was already an attempt to do something like this and it failed: Wikipedia:Conlangs. Until someone successfully revives it, i strongly oppose adding to Wikipeda conlangs which didn't gain notability outside their little communities. You may look at some of my half-baked ideas on the issue here: User:Amire80/Notability (languages and writing systems). If you can improve it, be bold and go for it. --Amir E. Aharoni 14:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for you reply! I'm of course aware of the fact that Wikipedia is not the place for seeking attention. However, I disagree with you if you state that a Wikipedia article is a means to get attention. Is the article Star Wars a means to get attention for the movies? Of course not! So why would an article about a more obscure subject suddenly mean promotion? In any case, I'd be happy to give you proof, but the truth of the matter is that I don't have the time to delve deeply into all kinds of archives.

    Personally, I'm not much of a deletionist. WP:NOTPAPER etc. I also firmly believe that obscure content isn't harmful. What really matters is that the text of an article is true and can be verified as such. I'm surely not saying we should allow here articles about virtually any conlang. When lack of notability of obvious, there shouldn't be an article. More than once, I've "voted" delete in an AfD regarding a conlang. However, in doubtful cases, I say we give an article the benefit of the doubt and keep it.

    On the other hand, I can see your point regarding distinguishing more notable from less notable languages. Why not? In part, this is already done on the List of constructed languages, at least where the auxlangs are concerned. An easy way of doing such a thing on a list is working with boldface. The problem is only, how do we distinguish major from minor conlangs? Why is Idiom Neutral listed as a major auxlang and Lingua Franca Nova as a minor?

    The problem with fictional languages is indeed that there are a lot of them, and they are very, very different. We can subdivided them according to their source: let's say categories for Fictional Languages from Books, Fictional Languages from Movies, Internet-based Fictional Languages, etc. That would at least party solve the issue. But then, Tolkien's Quenya and Sindarin would end up with minor languages that appear in some book, even though they consist of five words and one sentence only. Still, I think such a solution MIGHT do the trick to some extent.

    A special category for Internet-based language still shouldn't become a playground, just like no other part of Wikipedia should.

    Regards, —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, differentially listing more and less notable languages does not require deleting all the less notable ones. (And Kēlen isn't a less notable one.) This can be solved by well-maintained list articles, or subcategories sorted by notability. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 05:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

in the same category - this category neither says or implies anything about notability, just whether the language is an artistic language or not. There are other, better ways to list & categorize conlangs by notability - e.g. Category:Constructed language articles by importance (which is only pending a fix of {{WP conlangs}} to implement 'importance'). You are arguing not that the language should not have a Wikipedia article, but that it (and others) should be presented in an appropriate light, or that there should be a comprehensive list of conlangs by notability. Those latter proposals I would fully support. Just deleting everything out of hand, however, is a destructive and inefficient way to achieve this goal.

outside their little communities - as in, they have to gain notability based on the say-so of people who are not interested in the subject of created languages? Kinda condescending, no?

And speaking of WP:CONLANG, I *am* reviving it. I'm in process of refurbing WP:CL - note the new {{WP conlangs}} tagging - so if that's your objection, please just hang on. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 21:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Article about Star Wars is not a means to get attention to the movies, because they have quite enough attention. But Kēlen could use some more attention, and a Wikipedia article is a pretty good way to get it.

What really matters is that the text of an article is true and can be verified as such - That's not enough - it must be true, verifiable and notable.

Kinda condescending, no? - Oh, goodness, i learned a new English word. If by "condescending" you mean "patronizing", then no, not at all. I love music and i love indie music and i play in an indie band myself. If you Google the name of our singer, you'll get 500+ results. So well, our band is known inside its little community, but i don't mean to write an article about it until we at least release an album or become really notable in the local press, 'cuz Google is rather meaningless. Quite simply i admit that we don't pass any of the tests at WP:BAND and i don't see it as condescending. Unfortunately, there's no such detailed guideline for conlangs yet. If you are reviving WP:CONLANG, it will do good, but it is unlikely that you'll reach consensus if your proposal will admit languages such as Kēlen into Wikipedia, because it contradicts the current general notability guidelines. --Amir E. Aharoni 17:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Within Conlangs it is notable because of its foundational principles. More citations for its usage would be useful. jonathon 00:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep — It exists, doesn't it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  My cat exists, too. (Sorry, i just had to.) --Amir E. Aharoni 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  And? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 22:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

  Assumably, Wikipedia doesn't have an article on his cat. shoy (^words _words) 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

  So write one. It exists; thus, it's a legitimate subject for an article. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. See WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING. shoy (^words _words) 23:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:NNOT and WP:NOTPAPER. If you can create an article about your cat that satisfies WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, please do. :) Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 23:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lack notability, sources, fails to state its importance from an outside view. Mbisanz 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Failure to state something is an argument for editing, not deletion. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• • A failure to state the article's importance in the article may also mean that there is no verifiable source that indicates teh articles notability. In the case of an article lacking notability, I still stand by deletion. And given the several days of this debate and the continued lack of verified notability. Mbisanz 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable, not sourced properly Pilotbob 03:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not notable, very little context. An interesting concept if it got significant coverage in RSes, but not yet. Carlossuarez46 19:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete An arguably big fish in an indisputably small pool. No sources asserting notability that are not fishy. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:08, 30 October 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.