Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sambahsa-mundialect

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 as non-notable constructed language, lacking any reliable sources at all. Bearian 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sambahsa-mundialect

Sambahsa-mundialect (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Recently constructed language being promoted by its creator. No evidence of notability. From the comments on the talk page, an appropriate treatment might be to redirect to Modern Indo-European and mention it briefly there. -- RHaworth 17:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, do not merge. A years-old constructed language created by a well-known linguistic researcher might have a stab at notability, if it'd been picked up by reliable sources. This, as a three-month old language created by someone who appears to be an amateur linguist (I can't find anything that suggests otherwise), falls significantly short. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• elete-day ot-nay otable-nay. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I strongly oppose WP:N as a criterion, for reasons given at WP:NNOT. However, I support WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, and this article appears to be gray-lined on those points. Merge to Modern Indo-European or similar. Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 06:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Article makes no claim for notability of subject and has no references to reliable third-party sources. -- Schaefer (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Google shows up nearly no independent websites about this language. Plus, Slovio was reverted a few days earlier, although there's much more reason to include it, as it's older and quite well-known among people who know something about IAL (didn't want to say "conlang experts"). This conlang is far less notable than Slovio, which at least was a borderline case. — N-true 13:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete with a flavour of merge. If languages like Slovio and Folkspraak can't have articles (and don't even deserve to be mentioned, according to some!), then I can't imagine this language would be an exception. That's by no means an assessment of the language itself, which may very well be an excellent piece of work. But yes, I can only repeat the arguments I used on the talk page: original research, notability issues and vanity. But, although merging it into Modern Indo-European or somesuch would go a bit too far, I can imagine this project would at least be worth mentioning as a sister/cousin project. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 18:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no merge - No evidence of coverage in any non-self published sources. Otherwise, it's not clear what would stop me from creating Aagtbfoua-dialect, blogging it, and then "earning" a merge or redirect to a notable article. IMHO, a delete+merge (or redirect-merge, since we don't delete if we're merging) is only appropriate if the subject has trivial coverage in verifiable, reliable sources. If/when we have enough verifiable, NPOV info to write an article, we can write an article. - Aagtbdfoua 17:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Copied from the talk page:

Sellamat! I am actually the author of the page and, as such, I don't take a stand. From the comments above, I suppose I was misled by the fact that auxlangs with no speaker have an article (ex: Europaio whose friendly creator adviced me to publish my work on the Net; not to mention "fantasy auxlangs" like Wenedyk of our friend Jan). I would just recommend that guidelines for deletion should be redefined, especially about notability. In general, people on the street have only heard about esperanto while "auxlangers" communicate nowadays through the Net (for auxlangs are by nature a matter of international concern) and have thus seen a lot of projects. Concerning articles by third parties, don't forget that the ability to make journalists or scholars pay attention to his/her project is not revealing of the quality of the language itself, as Jan has already said. (I'd like to add that I did not create the language to go on Wikipedia, for I began working on it when Wikipedia did not yet exist :-))

If auxlangs like Slovio don't deserve an article, I don't bother about deletion nor merging of the page.

Do what you have to do.

Best regards. Mundialecter 18:34, 28 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.