Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (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 Delete — no reliable sources produced to demonstrate notability of the subject. Indeed, many arguments were made that sources cannot be found for conlangs — however, this was disputed by the demonstration that sources do exist for some, notable ones. As such, the argument that guidelines should be ignored is not compelling. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verdurian language

Verdurian language (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This constructed language claims to be quite well known in the conlang community but I have failed to find any coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. All Ghits [1] are personal web pages, wikis and the like. Although this article survived a previous AfD, it did not address this issue. Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article doesn't cite sources, and if the nominator can't find any, then we're left with original research. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ptcamn (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I would like to contradict the statement made by the originator of this AfD. Because I see a whole lot of google hits [2] for Verdurian that are not wikis, personal web pages, or "the like". I can state with a reasonable degree of confidence that many of these sites are not run by people who are just friends of Mark Rosenfelder. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please could you provide us with a specific selection of such hits that meet Wikipedia's criteria on reliable sources? As far as I can see, none of them do. Being unrelated to Mark Rosenfelder is not good enough: they need to be sources that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (e.g. scholarly journals etc.) Snthdiueoa (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well of course you arent going to find anything like that on a conlang. Not even the big ones like Klingon get much mention in linguistics journals. But if youre going to use that strict of an interpretation of WP:RS, that effectively bars not just Verdurian, and not just all conlangs, but all non-academic content from Wikipedia. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, I just gave scholarly journals as one example of reliable sources. Newspaper articles, books by publishing houses that have some form of editorial control (ie not vanity publishers), and so on, can also help establish notability. 62.136.34.82 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you pick a source criterion and stick to it. It was mentioned in Le Monde, among others. Slac speak up! 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My source criteria are WP:RS and have not changed. Please can you provide us with references to where it was mentioned so that we can verify that these mentions are non-trivial. 213.208.81.149 (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pthag (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as notable, or else delete all reference to internet conlangs, furries, etc. Slac speak up! 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue at stake is not whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but whether there are any reliable third party sources for Verdurian in particular. Any Internet conlangs that can satisfy WP:WEB in their own right can stay. So far, however, no reliable sources whatsoever have been forthcoming for Verdurian. Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As I've said before, you can't judge conlangs by the same standards as for example pop music. It's not something newspapers, scientific journals and other media talk about a lot. Especially when the language in question is a work of art. Yet, from time to time it happens. If it's true that Le Monde wrote about it, that's an excellent reason to keep the article. Even if not, that still doesn't change the fact that Verdurian is a well-respected and well-known conlang; and one of the bigger and older ones to that. Besides, 8940 ghits is a lot! Has nom. really gone through all of these to establish that not a single one directs to anything else but the author's website, mailing lists, wikis or blogs? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No but these are the standards that Wikipedia requires in order to fulfil the criteria of no original research and verifiability. If Le Monde really has written about it, someone will be able to give us a link to the article concerned. It's certainly not true that other conlangs don't get written about: Esperanto and Klingon are most definitely the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources all over the place. And as for the number of Google hits, that is one of the arguments listed in WP:ATA as invalid arguments in deletion debates. All we need are non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources, and it doesn't take many to carry the day -- it seems that two or three often suffice -- but so far the number that we have is zero. Snthdiueoa (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Le Monde article mentioned is this. As you can see, it's just a brief mention, not something that could be used as a source. --Ptcamn (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one sentence? Clearly trivial and insufficient. Snthdiueoa (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Verdurian is among the most well-known conlangs and is notable in the conlang community. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but going by Wikipedia's notability criteria -- coverage in reliable secondary sources -- this is simply not true. A search of Google News will give you some comparison with other conlangs. Esperanto: about 13,300 [3], Klingon: about 6,020 [4], Lojban: about 23 [5], Quenya: about 185 [6], Verdurian: zero. [7]. The assertion that Verdurian is among the most well known conlangs simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Snthdiueoa (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (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.