Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenedyk (2nd nomination)

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 still no consensus. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wenedyk

Non notable fake language; only 518 Ghits. Rory096(block) 06:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Question: What is the criteria for notable? There have (apparently) been articles published about this language, and not by the creator, and I do invite someone who speaks german and/or polish to please verify the articles Mr. van Steenbergen cited. If being published about is the criteria for notabilty, then this whole AfD is moot. Where can I find the "policy" or "convention" of Wikipedia about this? Bo-Lingua 20:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: Here is the first nomination, which resulted in no consensus. Grandmasterka 06:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's not a fake language; it is completely real. It just happens to be a constructed language. Within the field of constructed languages, it's very well known. I don't think 500 hits for something with no false positives is half bad. Also, an article on the language is on enough Wikipedias to put it near the top of lists of articles that should be translated to English, should it be deleted.--Prosfilaes 06:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I get around 360 Ghits, do I even come close to deserving an article? --Rory096(block)
      • Comment. You can't reduce notability down to a simple counting of Ghits. Certainly the number of Ghits must be taken with an pinch of salt when we're talking about a person who communicates via the Internet.--Prosfilaes 07:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment. While true, it's a good measure, as if it's notable enough, people will be talking about it. Also, I rarely use my full name on the internet (my screenname gets about 20,000 Google hits). --Rory096(block) 07:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Trim and Merge into constructed languages, if consensus satisfied as to notability. -- Simon Cursitor 07:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This has an article on nine other wikipedias. It can be expanded using the information on grammar and phonetics from the Italian version. David Sneek 07:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: speaking of the length of the italian article, why must length really matter? There are how many hundred-thousand of stubs that are pointless, yet they linger around. If it needs to be expanded to somehow have merit, then by all means, let's do so. Bo-Lingua 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, it does not have a single speaker according to the box on the article and it has only been in existence since 2002. -- Kjkolb 10:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Brithenig to make a new article (how about Languages of Ill Bethisad for lack of a better title).--blue520 11:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: The thought is good, but I'm not sure if it would give a workable solution. First of all, there are a lot more languages in IB than Brithenig and Wenedyk only. Even this list is far from complete! In order to be complete, I'm afraid an article like the one you're referring to would be pretty exhaustive, and it would also have to list quite a lot of languages that notability-wise would not warrant inclusion. Another thing is that not all IB language would owe their notability to Ill Bethisad only, case in point being Brithenig. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 19:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Kjkolb. This isn't Esperanto.--Isotope23 14:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Language is wellknown in Poland and there has been at least one article about it in a magazine. Gwarnik 14:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Gwarnik, I know there are nitpickers out there. Can you cite the magazine that it appeared in? Bo-Lingua
    • Comment: Nope, it doesn't seem to be; there are only forty G-hits off of Polish-domain websites, most of those mirrors of the Polish Wikipedia article or links to a single Geocities webpage. I applaud the Bethisadians for their self-promotional skills, but that still doesn't constitute notability. RGTraynor 16:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment I'm not voting to keep it because it's Ill Bethisad related, nor is it self-promotion. If it is deemed to be deleted, I will support it. It _is_ well known in conlanging circles, and was one of the steps that led me personally into conlanging and eventually Ill Bethisad. Bo-Lingua 17:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I suppose Gwarnik is referring to an article in the Polish monthly Wiedza i Życie. In February 2004 (IIRC) there was an article by Dorota Gut under the title "Nowa Mowa" ("New Language"), which was mostly, but not exclusively, about Wenedyk. That article, like most articles in the printed press, is not accessible online, but it dóes exist. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, I think that was it. Gwarnik 08:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: A German article about Wenedyk and other conlangs of similar vein: Tilman Berger: Vom Erfinden Slavischer Sprachen (in German, PDF) (Found on the North Slavic languages page.) Bo-Lingua 21:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. This language is well known outside of the Ill Bethisad community due to its innovation on the theme set forth by Brithenig; for ex: My linguistics professors are aware of the language and have used class-room examples at BYU. While other related projects do not, in my opinion deserve their own article, this one and Brithenig do. Bo-Lingua 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn constructed language. I cannot find substace to the assertion that it is well known outside of the Ill Bethisad community. Eusebeus 15:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per David Sneek --Astrokey44 16:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Excuse me, this is an invented language not used in a major fictional work, but in an alternate history project fifty people have bought into for which a possible novel might be written? That they've managed to slip under the radar and spam a lot of Wikipedias doesn't make this notable; it's perilously close to WP:NFT. Plainly a lot of work's gone into this, but hell, I've put nearly thirty years of demographic, linguistic, economic and historical work into my RPG campaign, and I don't think that's Wiki-notable. RGTraynor 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I wish people would stop making personal attacks like this. "That they've managed to [...] spam a lot of Wikipedias"? You seem to imply that all this is part of one big action for self-promotion. May I remind you that neither the article about Ill Bethisad nor the article about Wenedyk were started by me, or any other IB member? You may like it or not, but there are a lot of people interested in these things. If you're not, that's perfectly fine with me, but don't use this trollish kind of argumentation. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 19:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • If neither you nor any other IB member have been doing the article writing or the spamming, may I ask upon what grounds you conceive that to be an attack upon you? That being said, I am quite happy at characterizing writing an article about a non-notable subject across several Wikipedias "spamming;" I've certainly created no article myself which in my estimation failed to pass the applicable criteria. That there is a fandom on artificial languages is irrelevant; there are fandoms based around many things which still nonetheless must past verifiability and notability musters. RGTraynor 19:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I consider it to be an attack upon me ánd the other fifty IB members because of the way you formulated it: "[...] an alternate history project fifty people have bought into [...] That they [i.e. those fifty people] have managed to slip under the radar and spam etc.". It may just be a matter of poor word choice, but you áre implying that all IB related stuff was produced by IB members only. That's simply not true. I also object against the term "spam", which I would define as violent, unsollicited self-promotion. None of these qualifications are true. By using the term, you implicitly attack not the article, but the people who worked on it in (presumably) good faith. Again, if you don't care for the subject, that's fine. But calling articles about subjects you don't care for "spam" is very unpleasant; there are lots of subjects I don't care for myself, but I wouldn't dream of calling them "spam". Besides, if the existence of a fandom doesn't point towards notability, then what does? As far as both Ill Bethisad and Wenedyk are concerned, verifiability doesn't seem to be the issue. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 20:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, per David Sneek. Also, it has a respectable number of Wikipedia pages linking to it, not counting user pages and the AfD logs. --Ginkgo100 17:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article passed the previous call for deletion: this means there was not enough clear opposition. Constructed languages aren't "fake" any more than a model railway is a "fake" railroad. The usual ad hominem attacks and misinformation round out the opposition to the article. Naysayers seem to only rely on personal dislike for a subject rather than reasoned dispute. "Notability" is also a red herring: there are plenty of lesser known artists and works of art out there that are and ought to be recorded as part of the deposit of human culture. Elemtilas 22:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • (User's sole contributions are on AfDs concerning artificial languages) I doubt anyone would call a model railroad "fake." As it happens, there is a model railroad enthusiasts' club in my area, with a large set up and about sixty-five members. Would you consider, under your stance, an article about SSRE's railroad suitable for Wikipedia? As far as notability being a "red herring," your position that lesser works of art deserve recordation notwithstanding, Wikipedia has notability guidelines to determine whether an article can be included or not. RGTraynor 14:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • So what if my "sole contributions" are on AfDs concerning artificial languages. That doesn't make my opinion any less valid than yours. Since you understand how a model railroad isn't a "fake" railroad, you already understand how a model language isn't a "fake" langauge. I would consider an article about model railroading every bit as acceptable as an article about conlanging. A short article about a spectacular model railway (like "Roadside America", if it still exists), or a conlang, or some lesser known opus by a not-so-well-known composer are all quite valid. Notability is a red herring because there are no good objective criteria. If your whole artistic world revolves around rap, then the Seasons will hardly be "notable". Elemtilas 03:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. If even the creator of this language is unable to provide any reliable sources beyond his own website, this simply won't pass WP:V. —Ruud 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I don't understand what you're saying. "unable to provide any reliable sources beyond his own website"? What do you mean? Are not the two published articles (who are not Jan van Steenbergen) "reliable sources". Please explain your objection to the article. Bo-Lingua 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Me neither. Since you are referring to the verifiability page, why do you place the burden of evidence upon the creator of the language, and not on the person who wrote the article, or on the third parties who might give their objective opinion? That seems pretty contradictory to me! But for the record, I'm the creator of the language in question, and I'll be more than happy to provide you with any information you need. So, what is it you want to see verified? My website is sufficient proof that the language exists, and is real, so that can't be the issue. Significance? Aside of the two printed sources mentioned by Bo-Lingua, the web is full of references to Wenedyk. Of course, you might argue that the web is not a reliable source, but whether you like it or not, it is a new medium, which has changed the world completely. Therefore, judging an internet-published creation by the amount of books written about it is like judging the quality of a car by the question whether a horse can pull it. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 18:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Could you add a "references" section in that case? —Ruud 21:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
          • As a matter of fact, I can't and won't, for the very reason I stated above. As the creator of the language, it's not up to me to decide what its significance is. My contribution to the article therefore has been limited to adding an interwiki link here and there, and correcting one blatant error. Anything beyond that would come dangerously close to what's described in WP:VANITY. That is also the reason why I haven't issued a vote and only given a few comments. I'll look for the Polish magazine (I should have it around somewhere) and add the data here. I know there are (or were) a few web references as well, but I have to admit that I haven't been keeping track of that for at least two years now. They might be gone. —IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij 22:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, assuming that it is a fully (or anyway mainly) functional language, which it appears to be. Invented languages are valud article subjects. Also FWIW the article itself is in pretty good shape, which doesn't hurt the case. Herostratus 21:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Unless I'm mistaken, this thing has an ISO-639 code. That to me makes it worthy of inclusion on its own. This is on nine wikipedias (most, if not all, independently created it appears) and is verifiable and other users are independently finding sources about it. I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be here. Grandmasterka 22:11, 27 April 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.