Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vemiesiire

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Splashtalk 23:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vemiesiire

Delete. The contents of this article are non-verifiable, original research, and obviously a case of vanity. No sign of notability either: 0 ghits for the name of the conlang, 13 for the name of the author. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 07:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

KeepI know someone that speaks it (they know the woman that wrote it somehow). I think it's kind of interesting. I say don't delete it, people where I live know about it. I don't or I would edit.

  • Delete Non-notable, not sourced (at least not to anything I would look to). Makemi 17:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

KeepYou probably didn't find any hits on it because the title was just decided. The working title was Kokopelli.

Comment The previous unsigned comments were by 206.106.97.98 Makemi 17:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I should note that "Kokopelli" generates a lot of ghits, most of them apparently related to some kind of flute. A google for "kokopelli+heidewald" gives only three hits, obviously not related to the language either. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 17:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Also search:Kokopelli and "constructed language" gives absolutely no relevant hits. Makemi 17:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep Just because it isn't interesting to you doesn't mean it doesn't matter to the people that speak it. It seems like a useful article, has an example of the language and everything. IJzeren Jan seems a bit of a hypocrite to me, seeing he has his own constructed language and he fought so bitterly over that site not being deleted. It's a language some people obviously speak, if this one goes then many others need to be cleaned out, including IJzeren Jan's language, where the outside link attached is his website! Wikipedia is all about have people use their specialized knowledge to inform other people! --Menner8 19:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It may be verifiable, just not published all over the internet. Looks fine to me, doesn't hurt you any. Keep.

The preceding two comments are both by User:Menner8 (1 edit, to this page), who also added the word "Keep" to the other two unsigned comments by User:206.106.97.98. Please don't use Sockpuppets. Makemi 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Getting personal, Menner8? Well then, let me explain a few things:
  1. Indeed, I dó have a constructed language. Several even. What's the difference? I'm very interested in conlangs and I do care for them. If you don't believe me, just look at the Portal:Constructed languages that I've co-created.
  2. I didn't start the article about Wenedyk myself. It was started by someone else. What I did do was making a few edits later on. Besides, I have never claimed my language is notable, but others apparently do. And honestly, I don't care much if the article is there or not; it is not supposed to be learned by anybody anyway.
  3. I didn't fight bitterly over that article in particular. At the time, there was a massive attack against a whole series of conlangs, mine included, and the reason for these attacks was pretty moot. So I stood up for all of them. If the vote had been about Wenedyk only, I would have abstained from voting.
  4. The outside link points to my website. So what? At least, there is something on that website!
  5. I know that Google hits are not the only measure for significance, but for fairly recent phenomena like young conlangs it is about the only source we have. The problem with V. is simply that there's nothing that would even confirm that the language exists at all. No grammar, no dictionary, no info about its creator, nothing! If there's a book about it, then please mention the title and the ISBN number. It the press has been writing about it, ditto. But the way it looks now, the whole thing might very well be a hoax. My point is: there's nothing to substantiate the article.
  6. Saying that there are several people who speak it is easy. So, where are these people? Who are they? Can you prove it?
Regards, —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 20:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete utterly nn; go learn French instead. Eusebeus 20:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I think the language is not only a beautiful sounding language, it also is a well-constructed language with simplified grammar. I am glad to hear that it has some speakers already and hope to read more words in Vemiesiire when the dictionary goes on-line. From Wikipedia user, Jeanette Neher

  • Here I am, author of the article. I am here, I suppose, to defend what I wrote and explain a simple yet beautiful concept. It doesn't matter as much to you as it does to other people. I want the article to be included because I think it has information interesting to a specific audience. This is a real language, and all information I included is drawn right from its dictionary, comprised of thousands of words. I don't feel the need to verify its authenticity or provide you with names of speakers willing to write e-mails flexing their skills (although I easily could, if you would like). I don't feel the need because I don't think this discussion is even really about Vemiesiire, and I think a more general stance on conlags should be defined for Wikipedia, so we can have order and reason and not just personal vendettas and unnecessary hurt feelings.

In the meanwhile, I stand by its authenticity and will always delight to share my specific knowledge with the world, and hope others feel the same determination. Keep. --Erika00177 21:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

A discussion regarding policy regarding conlangs has been, and in a way still is, going on. See WP:CONLANG. Look, this is not about constructed languages in general, not even about yours. And this has nothing to do with any personal vendettas. To be frank, I even like your language, and I would certainly like to hear the soundbytes. It's about the question whether or not an article here in WP is warranted. And the arguments I used (lack of verifiability, original research, vanity, no sign of notability) would make one suspect that it isn't for now. You saying that it's all true doesn't change those facts. I agree with you this information is interesting to a specific audience, but that's really not enough for inclusion! Like I told you on your user page, there are several more specialised places for that. I even took the liberty to transwiki your article to the Conlang Wiki (here it is; feel free to do with it as you please). —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 22:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Conditional Weak Delete The author does raise a point that conlangs should not be deleted a priori, but the fact remains that conlangs must be NOTABLE to be included on WP. I could make up a very poor conlang in 10 minutes, but that wouldn't make it article-worthy. Alternately, I could make a very good one over several years, but if no one spoke it and it was generally irrelevant, it still wouldn't be a WP article. Author/article must show that this conlang is significant in some way (are there institutes that teach this language? are there provably a large number of people who speak the language? etc.) If this is done, I would be strongly in favor of keeping this article. KrazyCaley 23:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • No Google hits! No langmaker entry! It doesn't even appear on Janko Gorenc's list! Delete! Wiwaxia 10:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Original research has no place here. Also it should be noted the use of sock puppets to influence this vote.--Alabamaboy 00:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-verifiable rubbish. incog 19:10, 24 January 2006 (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.