Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lingua Franca Nova

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 keep no consensus to delete - default to keep. Canley (talk) 12:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (reworded after discussion --Canley (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Lingua Franca Nova

Lingua Franca Nova (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable and all sources are self-published. A mailing list and a wiki are not too convincing per WP:SPS. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment-well Im on both sides of this one, I find alot of pages on this subject in searches, so it doesnt fail WP:NOTABLE. Although, the sourcing is bad. Mayby a clean up and additional reliable sources and then it should be able to remain.TrUCo⁹31¹ 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - certainly passes as notable, but could do with better referencing. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment: How exactly does it pass as notable? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Recognized by ISO (this constitutes strong external scrutiny)hence notable. The cited sources are works of the creators of LNF hence authoritative. Rgds, w.dijkhuis 24 January 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.125.38 (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I'd like to see some documents about this "scrutiny". The committee that grants those ISO codes seems to be doing a pretty lousy job if they gave a code to a constructed language based on a request from its creator, which says that it is not recognized by anyone and that it is used in "email correspondence", without any more references. See for yourself: Google search for site:www.sil.org "lingua franca nova". This very short request was written by the language's creator, so it is also self-published per WP:SPS. This may sound like cruel bureaucracy, but actually it is just common sense. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply to comment. Here are some facts to supply a basis for this discussion. ISO does have standards, an earlier request to grant LFN an ISO code was denied (Google it). The new request was not only submitted by the creator of LFN, it was supported by about 10 other persons (Google it). The “self” you refer to is not “the” creator of LNF but a community of 30+ people that collectively worked at the LFN project for about 10 years (there are 3 or 4 generations of contributors). The result is a conlang that is widely known and appreciated in the wider conlang community. (Take the trouble to go to the auxlang yahoo group. Yesterday I counted 556 messages that referred to LFN and 465 that mentioned Lingua Franca Nova).The LFN corpus is not overwhelming but definitely noticeable – and I would claim: noticed - . LFN is (omni)present in lists of conlangs that are compiled by independent compilers of such lists. (go to the auxlang page of wikipedia, scroll to the bottom, there you will find Lingua Franca nova among the MOST notable conlangs – LFN is not just notable, it is most notable according to the judgment of the authors of that page). Yes, you are right, the modern conlang community does live and publish on the web, “respectable” references are hard to find. However, there is one initiative where this web based world strives to gain a foothold in the traditional academic sphere: the Language Creation Conferences, organized by Sai Emrys of Berkeley. Guess what, Sai votes KEEP (see below) – thanks Sai, keep up the good work. w.dijkhuis 25 january 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.125.38 (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

One tries. ;) But I don't expect to have any especial personal weight on Wikipedia; I'm just another editor who believes in WP:NNOT. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm not a strict inclusionist when it comes to auxlangs (in fact I nominated a page to be deleted two weeks ago, one on an Esperanto site that I didn't feel deserved its own page on Wikipedia) but LFN does deserve its own page and now has an ISO number and is also currently progressing quite well in its nomination for a Wikipedia. A year or two ago it might have been delete-worthy, not now. Mithridates (talk) 03:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - LFN has an ISO number, about 200 speakers, wiki articles in several languages, its own wiki with more than 1000 articles, a tutorial in five languages on wikibooks.... References are authoritative, and if "self-published" is a criterion for deletion, I have to wonder how many Esperanto books are published by advocates and their associated publishers? If Esperanto has more independent published articles to refer to, how many of those got all their information from one of those "self-published" sources? All technical informatin on conlangs ultimately derives from the originators themselves, so this would constitute a no-win situation. Only "old" conlangs need apply, and any innovation is essentially kept from the wiki public. Agricolaplenus (talk) 13:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment:

• ISO number - see my comment above.
• 200 speakers - find me a secondary source to prove that, see WP:PSTS.
• wiki articles in several languages - this is a self-reference to a sister project, see WP:SELF.
• its own wiki with more than 1000 articles - an open wiki is not a reliable source, see WP:SPS.
• a tutorial in five languages on wikibooks - by now you should already guess that it is both WP:SELF and WP:SPS.
• how many Esperanto books are published by advocates - quite a lot. But Esperanto is also covered by an enormous number of external sources, and with LFN it doesn't seem to be the case, until someone proves the opposite.
• any innovation is essentially kept from the wiki public - yes, it is. This is called original research, see WP:NOR.

You see, all these policy pages with annoying bureaucratic acronyms seem like tools that help deletionists that want to destroy interesting articles that other people wrote, but actually they are there to show that all those discussions about notability, verifiability, quality and reliability of cited sources etc. have already been held numerous times and a consensus has been reached about them. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE is not a rule, it's a suggestion. One that not everyone agrees with. We are not bound to agree to this previous "consensus", and it is not part of Wikipedia *policy*. You have said nothing that actually claims the article is of poor quality, verifiability, or reliability for the *facts* that are claimed in the article. Remember, these aren't just pointless suggestions; they're there to try to achieve certain specific ends. Third party sources aren't always relevant, nor do they always make something better. That would imply that journalists ought to control what goes into encyclopedias... Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE is a rule: it has a big V on it, while WP:NNOT has a big X.

journalists ought to control what goes into encyclopedias - it's a sad fact that journalists often make things notable. Journalists didn't make LFN notable. Neither did anyone else. The ISO code is an extremely weak exception, as i explained above.

I am not saying that LFN is a bad conlang or that it doesn't have potential to become notable in the future. It just doesn't appear to be currently more notable then any of the other languages on LangMaker and similar sites. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

ORLY? Did you read the thing at the very top of it that says it's not a policy, just a guideline? Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above and WP:NNOT. BTW, people here may also be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ill Bethisad, nominated by same person for same reasons. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 00:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Yes, Journalists make things notable--but they are not the only way something can be notable, and their view of the wold is not the totality of importance for an encyclopedia. There is a fundamental dichotomy--the encyclopedia includes things that people want to know about not just for current interest but for general civilization. Any language with an iso code is notable.again, we're judging by an external source, but a more more relevant one for the purpose. DGG (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This language is notable - very well-known, ISO code etc. For the rest, see my comments below. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

Once upon a time, Wikipedia was a place to get information on all kinds of things. It was both an encyclopedia of basic information, a place to find out about things a bit more esoteric, and even a place to find trivia. For some reason, the powers-that-be decided it only wants to be an online Encyclopedia Britannica.

When I was a kid, interested in languages, I could get a few language books from my local library, but most languages were unavailable. Encyclopedia might have a paragraph or two, but nothing satisfying. One of the wonders of the net is that you can find detailed information on just about anything that sparks your intellect. And Wikipedia is - or was - the best source of all.

It's hard to find an article nowadays that doesn't have a "needs sources" or "inappropriate content" or "not up to standards" or other tag attached to it.

That said, I would like to know why a language like LFN, with hundreds of advocates and even (just recently) its own ISO code, is somehow of less interest than Esperanto or Ido or Novial. Or of less interest than sports figures and movie stars. Or of less interest than porn stars and sexual techniques?

Perhaps we should concentrate more on adding and improving what's already there, rather than tearing down other people's work.

Agricolaplenus (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Wikipedia is getting more anal about things, but it's not too bad that there are lots of "citation needed"s all over the place; in fact, they are helpful in pointing out possibly untrue information. But to delete the article on LFN because all the material is self-published is silly. This is a constructed language, so of course its creator would know the most about it! Why is the work of the creator and speakers not valid? They are the only ones who can provide any information on the language! --Kinghajj (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's creator knows the most about it, but if no-one else knows anything about it, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. See my comments at the deletion discussion. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What about the 200 people that speak, or at least read, the language? Besides, although one person began the creation, dozens of others improved it with their suggestions over the years, including more than doubling its vocabulary! I respect you, Amir, but this time, your action is baseless. --68.82.216.178 (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly. I'd like to see proof, which is in line with Wikipedia policy on sources - WP:PSTS and WP:SPS.

(You forgot to log in. IJzeren Jan? Saizai? Someone else?) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(That was not me.) As I mentioned in the other deletion discussion WP:NOTE is NOT A POLICY it's just a guideline that not everyone agrees with. Moreover, WP:PSTS, which IS a policy, clearly says that primary sources ARE allowable, and should just be treated with a certain amount of sanity. Saying that something does not have third party sources, yet not actually disagreeing with FACTUAL CLAIMS, is bullshit. Just think about it - how do you expect that journalists writing about it would find out the facts? Simple: they would read it up on the same primary sources that the articles cite, and talk to those same people. And then probably get it half wrong because they aren't linguists. So please stop claiming that WP:NOTE is a policy, and please stop misapplying guidelines without heed to the actual reasons for their existence and the ways in which articles can be improved... or cases where they simply do not need to have external sources because they're not claiming anything that violates WP:PSTS. Putting an article up for deletion simply because it's about something that primarily takes place online is, IMNSHO, both abusive and heedlessly destructive and does not improve the quality of Wikipedia. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 20:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't me either, but here I am, and I cannot say I disagree with Agricolaplenus and the anonymous contributor above. And with Sai, of course. Let's get this straight: conlangs are a field that by many people is considered "obscure"; interest in the field is not broad and therefore cannot count on lots of media coverage. In other words, you simply can't compare it to rock bands and the like. If we'd apply the same standards on conlangs that we apply on other fields of art, then we'd end up with articles about maybe ten conlangs, at best. Is that where we want to go? Apart from the fact that Notability is indeed a guideline and not a law carved in stone, why do people make such an issue of articles about subjects that are, say, somewhere in the grey area between notable and non-notable? Frankly, I'm not happy at all with the fact that virtually every page on Wikipedia.en has all kinds of ugly tags attached to it. Why would people waste their time adding those tags instead of just improving articles, or, for that matter, trying to eliminate other people's work instead of creating their own? I'm all for keeping Wikipedia clean of nonsense and completely irrelevant stuff, but for heaven's sake, is it really necessary to make so much fuss about doubtful cases? An article about a conlang created in 2007 with 14 Google hits and no coverage at all should of course be deleted; but LFN is obviously not such a case. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 08:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not one of the sources this article cites passes the policies in WP:V, which states that "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." The article currently cites, in order of appearance:

1. A Lingua Franca Nova FAQ, apparently written by the language's creator, hosted on a personal website of the creator of the LFN wiki, Stefan Fisahn
2. A glossary of LFN, self-published on the personal website of its author
3. A pronunciation and spelling guide of unclear authorship, also hosted on Fisahn's website
4. A page on Omniglot, self-published by its author
5. The complete grammar of LFN, a page on Fisahn's LFN wiki.
6. A list of prefixes and suffixes, also on Fisahn's wiki.
7. Fisahn's LFN website, again
8. A translation of a Cat Stevens song on Fisahn's wiki.

Even if this article were to pass AfD, these sources are still unacceptable for use in Wikipedia. Once these sources and all the information attributed to them are removed, what verifiable information will remain? Only the fact that the ISO assigned this language a number at the request of its creator, and nothing else. -- Schaefer (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me see if I get this right. There are a number of conlangs that promote their virtues on the web. Lets take lojban, toki pona and LFN. Each of this conlangs has a thriving and productive community. Each reports it’s own achievements enthusiastically on the web. In your purist view they are not allowed to mention their existence on Wikipedia (that would constitute the cardinal sin of self-publishing). However if each would add on their websites a short message like: our conlang xxx is the best, but yyy and zzz are also quite nice, then all would be right, all three are endorsed by multiple external authorities. Your self-publishing problem would be solved? w.dijkhuis 25 jan 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.72.125.38 (talk) 20:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Stefan is essentially a publisher in this case: He likes lfn and has contributed, but is teaching his son esperanto. Omniglot is edited by Simon Ager, who does not simply put up what anyone sends him. The glossary referred to is not of lfn at all, but of the original Lingua Franca, and is published by Alan Corré (do your research!). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.216.178 (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My friend Stefan Fisahn and I once talked about the relative virtues of anarchism and socialism. Stefan said that if each person is permitted the freedom to add his or her voice to community decisions, the community will run itself, without an authority structure. And he pointed to wikipedia as an example of how well anarchy can work. I countered by suggesting that in an anarchy, authoritarians will arise, make alliances with other authoritarians, and we will soon be in the same position - or worse. Well, I don't know who is right about politics, but I do think wikipedia has developed a rather obvious authoritarian system. Those of us coming into the system from the outside find ourselves faced with many rules and regulations about which we have no voice. A sad state, for something with so much promise. --Cgboeree (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

all formal and informal groups of people have their conventions and social practices. The group of people working here is a very large one--a larger number of people than have probably been working on any equivalent project ever. We/they are trying to find ways of making progress on a multifaceted project while accommodating each other. What is needed is tolerance of diversity, but we know that this tolerance has given opportunities to those who would pervert our goals to their own propagandistic or commercial purposes. the tension here is unavoidable, and i can only urge that, like other people entering a group, that you learn the customs so that you can change them. At least that is what I am trying to accomplish personally.DGG (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been reading some of the standards, and it appears very clear to me that the sourcing issue revolves around the problem of anecdotal sources and opinions. If you look at the lfn entry, you will find that there is no use of anecdotes, that there is no proselyting, no effort at self-promotion, only a straight-forward presentation of the facts about the language. Even the so-called claims about membership are easily checked by looking at the editing histories and the group emails. Agricolaplenus (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. Mentioned in Switching Languages: Translingual Writers Reflect on Their Craft by Steven G. Kellman and Esperanto: Language, Literature, and Community by Pierre Janton. Wiwaxia (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's also mentioned in A Brief History of Globalization: The Untold Story of our Incredible Shrinking Planet by Alex MacGillivray: ". . . and more recently Lingua Franca Nova (1965) and Mondlango (2002)." It was verifiably invented in 1965 and people still care about it? Definitely a keeper! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiwaxia (talk • contribs) 08:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can search Google Print, too. The coverage in these books is very trivial. LFN is only mentioned there. From WP:NOTE: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.. It may be "just a guideline", but it makes a lot of sense. If it is passingly mentioned in printed books, than i suppose that it can be passingly mentioned in other articles, with an external link to Boeree's site.

Let me reiterate it: I totally assume good faith about the people who want to keep this article, and i really do think that LFN is one of the loveliest conlangs that i encountered, yet i am still convinced that this is a language that can only be properly described by its inventor it and possibly by a community of supporters on the web, whose number and authority is questionable. Please don't take "questionable" as an insult: I am just saying that a mere count of user accounts on a wiki or a Yahoo group is not by itself a very good measurement of the size of the community. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The idea that a language be measured by the number of accounts on Yahoo.groups or Wikipedia itself is ridiculous. Do we count the number of Japanese speakers by the number of Japanese speakers that happen to have Yahoo.group or Wikipedia accounts? Also, I could most likely adequately describe Japanese and I am not a native speaker, so that is also a erroneous measurement of inclusion validity. --...or Sano (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC) aka Sano.

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.