Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Language of Og

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. WP:NFT. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 01:23Z

[edit] The Language of Og

The Language of Og (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Argued by original PROD poster that only one Google result showed up, and Language was not relevant outside of one school. Posted by me in the belief it's a relevant discussion, despite my vote to keep. Autocracy 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Though this language may be taught only at one school (and we could definitely use a reference for it), I argue that it's more widely distributed than Lojban, and will continue to grow in use as its taught. It also seems fairly well documented. Autocracy 19:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - If it's not worth existing, it's not worth redirecting to the school. Zetawoof's comment convinces me that it's just not noteworthy at all without seeing something that says otherwise. Autocracy 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Move and Redirect to the school's page. I kind of feel like this should go because Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. However, given that it makes the school somewhat unique, I'd be happy to see it moved into the existing article. →Bobby← 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. Don't be fooled by the good-looking prose - most of it is copied from English language. Once you strip all of that away, the article basically just says that some students have a vocabulary of slang, which isn't really unusual or notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point you make. Davidicke 21:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep i believe this is a valid article of a growing sub-culture around essex schools. whilst only documented around one or two schools, it in fact has a much wider range, relating to possibly ten-twenty essex and local schools, which with each school having an average of 1000 pupils, this means this article could relate to potentially 10,000-20,000 people, which makes this article very relavent to wikipedia, because with 10,000-20,000 people it could quite easily spread alot further.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.248.106.65 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Seems to indicate this isn't "made up in school one day," but we really need a reference to get me to flip back (again) to Keep. Autocracy 20:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Don't be so sure: this account has made only four previous contributions, a mixture of vandalism and references to "Young Halz" or "Halz" who "was a bit of an og, he even made up his own language, the language of ote". Young Halz is mentioned in this article as a speaker of Og, and that article is also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young Halz Bencherlite 23:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, or a place for things thought up in school one day. Moreschi Request a recording? 20:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless an independent reference can establish notability. Note, the article itself says there are only 50 "Og" words. Davidicke 21:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, no sources; possible hoax; WP:NFT. --Muchness 22:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • When this language reaches a large minority of people useing it, AND we can verify that with reliable sources then we should have article on it. For now... no. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:N and WP:Crystal AlfPhotoman 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete In all probability, a hoax. If not, delete per J.S., copying from English language as noted by Zetawoof and nothing to support the idea that 10,000+ children in Essex speak this. Bencherlite 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day. A few words invented on a rainy afternoon does not constitute a language. Nuttah68 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep If google results are so critical in determining the future of an article, let's use google to get a definition of a language. Here's what it said: 'a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols; "he taught foreign languages"'. I think that Og therefore constitutes a language. Also, several people have justified their "Delete" by saying that is is very closely derived from English. If you wrote that you are either ignorant, stupid, or seem to have forgotten that the language we are speaking in, and indeed most other European languages are very closely linked to and is directly derived from Latin, which itself is very closely linked to and is directly derived from Ancient Greek. Paronomasia 18:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment You may want to read a few encyclopaedic articles to check those facts. You have summed up why Wikipedia articles MUST have reliable sources backing their statements so much more succinctly than WP:ATT. Nuttah68 19:12, 9 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.