Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mezangelle (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The result was withdrawn. Wickethewok 21:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mezangelle

Mezangelle (2nd nomination) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Constructed language that doesn't seem to meet WP:ATT. Apparently it was made up on various mailing lists. In any case, its not verifiable through multiple reliable sources. A previous VFD was here, which was a no consesus. Wickethewok 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as unverified and unnotable. How in god's name did it survive the first AFD? --RaiderAspect 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • For the same reason that it should survive this one: This language is documented in quite a number of books, papers, and articles on culture, such as (for examples) pages 248–249 of ISBN 1741140153, page 205 of ISBN 3211238719, this paper, this paper, this paper (albeit briefly), and this paper. (This paper documents code poetry in general, and mentions Mezangelle.) The subject is verifiable, and notable as demonstrated by it being documented with more than a passing mention by a fair number of reliable sources that are independent of Mary-Anne Breeze and of each other. I don't know how the nominator managed to miss all of these reliable sources. Some of them were even mentioned in the previous AFD discussion. Keep. Uncle G 19:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - The Fisher article (part3) has two paragraphs on it, the other online papers seem to be single sentence mentions (note that the Hayles link is broken and I don't have access to the book, so I can't attest to the extent that it is covered in those sources). I admit I'm on the fence-ish, so if anyone has access to and can remark on what is in the print source, that'd be helpful. Wickethewok 21:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The Cramer paper is more than a single sentence mention. The Hayles paper is, too. (The broken hyperlink was thanks to Google's cache. I've fixed it.) Uncle G 22:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Maybe someone could add proper ref tags for those sources above? Then probably keep. Kopf1988 22:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As it stands the articles is neither sourced, nor does it state why the language is notable. Those things need to be fixed if you want it kept. --RaiderAspect 05:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep and due rewrite There seems to be a tiny amount of notability in the topic, but the article lacks sources.--Sefringle 07:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep While I agree it needs a rewrite as well as more sources, I do believe it deserves its own article, unless it can be combined elsewhere. Until then, I say it should be kept. --Atrivedi 04:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Uncle G. I've plunked his sources into their own little section of the article, but (to pass the buck along again) "someone" needs to read them all, edit the article according to the information gleaned from the sources, and properly reference all the statements in the article (turning the "Sources" section into a proper "References" section along the way). Send to Cleanup now, I guess. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Keep per reasonable suggestions to change the article rather than half-formed "editor" opinions based on lack of referral to the 1st AFD discussion or [surprising easily accessible?] sources available. I'm gradually expanding/rewriting the article while wading through the sources. Not keen on buck-passing myself;). --A smithee 22:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Mez is a well-known & ground-breaking net artist/linguist whose work is widely discussed in established online communities; see http://www.hotkey.net.au/%7enetwurker/resume2d.htm for interviews, reviews & her bibliography. this entry should definitely not be deleted!!! Frock 04:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. This AfD is not about the article on mez. It's about the article on the language she invented. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 04:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep --Jukka44 04:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Mez is well know in net.art circles, and is prominent in the new media / media arts communitymmorphe 07:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Eesh, if there are going to be SPAs, they could at least discuss the article in question. ^^What Carolfrog said above. Wickethewok 08:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Either keep or attach to the article Mez. mez' mezangelle is a canonical subject in electronic literature criticism (N. Katherine Hayles, Rita Raley and others). It is odd that Wikipedia wants to delete this article while it keeps countless articles on b- or c-level porn actors, for example. cantsin 15:54, 20 March 2007
• Keep -- I've enjoyed the work of Mez for about nine years through seminal and influential online poetics communities. Mez to my understanding is a virtual construction and, as such, directly and critically engages with core issues at the intersection of internet culture, identity, and poetics. To question the legitimacy of Mez is to question the legitimacy of art itself. Of course such questioning comes naturally to many but I hope and pray we are not led by the many when the many choose to appeal solely to idiocy and ignorance within each of us. I've seen some nastiness wrt to poetics and poets before in the wikipedia community and I'm frankly tired of it. Go back to editing the Jenna Jameson entry. Textminer 17:57 20 March 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.