Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slovio

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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slovio

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

A constructed language. No evidence of notability, seems to be part of a walled garden of articles relating to Mark Hucko, some of which are already deleted, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi-level cosmology. Article is completely unsourced, presumably original research. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. I'm a bit skeptical, but most of the googlehits are wikipedia and other similar sites. I get the impression that this might become more popular in the future, but right now I don't think it's notable. fraggle 22:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Actually, Slovio is one of the more well-known international auxiliary languages. I don't see why Slovio shouldn't have the right to have it's article, when much lesser known conlangs like Novial, Interlingue and Solresol may stay. I even came to the article to look up information on the language. It would be a loss for Wikipedia if it got deleted. — N-true 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Through a Google search, I found 2 (seemingly independent and reliable) sources that address the language non-trivially: [1] and [2]. Based on this, I would say the subject meets WP:N, even if only just. -- Black Falcon 00:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• The first link is short overview of grammar, the second link is a very NN website. Pavel Vozenilek 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Notability does not require that the sources themselves be notable, only that they be reliable. -- Black Falcon 18:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment WP:N requires the sources be non-trivial. I'd argue the omniglot article is trivial, as it's nothing but a short overview, and is nothing but an internet website. A non-trivial source, by contrast, would be a mention in a published book or magazine. I haven't found any in a google books search. Also, "non-trivial" would mean saying more than just "here is a constructed language we found on the internet." In this case, though, if there is something like a medium (newspaper, even bulletin board system) where writers seriously USE Slovio, I can see that making this article notable. Basically, let's try to prove that someone other than Mark Hucko finds this language useful. Davidicke 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• I will readily admit that the article has/had notability concerns, but disagree with some of your statements above. Like you, I too prefer physically-published or publishable materials (books, journals, news) over websites. But, an internet website, as long as it reliable, is still a source. I believe the overview in the Omniglot page satisfies "non-triviality" because Slovio is the page's primary (nay, sole) focus. A trivial overview would be limited to: "Slovio is a constructed language invented by Mark Hucko.". It may be appropriate to merge this article into Mark Hucko, or vice versa, but I view that to be an editorial issue, which I would rather leave to those articles' talk pages and their editors (who are probably more specialised in matters related to constructed languages and their inventors). -- Black Falcon 21:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MADEUP. And from WP:N, "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." Thus, I would like to see more than an Omniglot overview. But I agree with you that merge into Mark Hucko might work, if Mark Hucko is notable himself at all. Davidicke 18:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: the article is not original research (it does not invent anything new and does not claim Slovio is used). I am not aware of Slovio being mentioned in any Czech media and AFAICS in Slovak media. A text written in Slovio is marginally understandable to me (a Czech who had learned (and forgot) Russian long ago) but IMHO it has snowball in the hell chance to be actually used. Pavel Vozenilek 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment 2: If kept, clean up the ext. links section and add http://www.zvestia.com/, which is a currently active news site in Slovio. Pavel Vozenilek 16:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The nominator has suggested that the article is is "completely unsourced" and "presumably original research". Neither of these assertions are accurate: the links provided in the "External links" section account for a significant portion of the text (and the existence of published material, however little, dispels concerns of OR). The article should have in-text references, but this is not equivalent to "completely unsourced". -- Black Falcon 18:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 18:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with N-true, this would be a loss for wiki if deleted. THE KING 01:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There is a clear reference to Slovio's Omniglot page, which for me is a good source and a big indicator of notability. Poeloq 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• On the other hand, Omniglot also lists many alphabets for languages that were created by visitors to this site (an aspect of Omniglot, that I absolutely dislike) and still wouldn't qualify for Wikipedia; but Slovio does not belong to them, of course. — N-true 01:55, 5 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.