Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comunleng

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no consensus. Kept and marked for cleanup. -- Scott eiπ 21:41, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Comunleng[edit]

I can't find any references to this on the internet that don't seem to be Wikipedia mirrors. Evil Monkey∴Hello 05:47, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete, original research. Megan1967 06:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The French and Spanish versions of the page are much more extensive, perhaps too much so for an encyclopedia but it leads some credence to its existence. There are also a lot of web pages that link to one or more of the language versions. On the other hand, I could not find any pages unrelated to Wikipedia either. Failing independent verifiability, I agree for deletion. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:05, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless verified, delete. Wikipedia is not the place to post your own research. Harro5 06:09, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as neologism. After a quick Google search there is nothing to suggest this isn't just another linguistics student trying to re-invent Esperanto and using Wikipedia to promote it. --Fazdeconta 12:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is actually a well-recognized auxlang name. 24.4.127.164 11:29, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here. Check this out: http://www.langmaker.com/db/mdl_comunleng.htm 24.4.127.164 11:39, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site that you posted gives Wikipedia as the source of the information. Evil Monkey∴Hello 20:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's a useful article, even if the language is not very widely known. -- BRG 18:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Why must VfD be a popularity contest for more obscure topics? The language is only five years old. The article exists in two other languages on Wikipedia. Surely it's no more harmful to keep this than to keep Europanto (which is a little bit more popular, granted...) --cprompt 23:17, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
    • Can you show me some sources that aren't Wikipedia mirrors or based on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:No original research. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:09, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • I can't. I only translated (well, cleaned up Babelfish output of) a portion of the original Spanish article. The author there should be able to support it. Under the interpretation of Wikipedia:No original research that Wikipedia should not host "primary sources", I really can't defend this article. --cprompt 22:54, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
        • So does that mean that you are changing you vote to delete? Evil Monkey∴Hello 21:10, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Lack of expertise on this, flag for clean-up if it survives VfD, perhaps it should have had a dispute instead of a VfD in the first place--Tznkai 01:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another conlang promotion article. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:24, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - conlangs are a special case IMHO. Bacchiad 04:31, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. CryptoDerk 04:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The first part of the article would benefit from a more neutral POV, though. Ar 15:19, 2005 May 29 (UTC)
  • Keep. Three interwikis? Definately notable. This page definately needs to go through a cleanup.Almafeta 19:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ummmm, those articles are also completely unreferenced. It's possible to submit made-up articles in multiple languages. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, cleanup, three interwikis for a conlang implies notability. Kappa 17:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Ditto for you, Kappa. Saying it exists because there are interwikis is very lazy. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • But three interwikis is also three places where it has been regarded as notable enough to survive a VfD. F'rex, take the French wikipedia: although the article was started by 83.134.150.* (here) as an article very similar to its current English state, it has been expanded by users unrelated to that original poster. There's an audience for this language. Almafeta 17:14, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless someone can provide an external reference. If this was notable it could be verified right away. — Trilobite (Talk) 21:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. (damn edit conflicts) No references that did not originate with Wikipedia. The article doesn't even give the name of an inventor(s). The is the very essence of non-verifiable information. (and multiple interwikis does not imply notablity, hoax articles have been interwikied before) func(talk) 21:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Interwikis =/= automatic good article. – ugen64 21:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. This is looking like a close vote, so I'd like to make a point for future voters: Even if this article survives the current VfD, it will ultimately be sent back repeatedly, because it doesn't answer even the most basic questions of notability and is in no way verifiable:
    • Who created it? (I'm guessing it was the Spanish Wikipedian who created the article)
    • Approx. how many speak it? (I'm guessing 1, the Spanish Wikipedian who created the article)
    • Where is the source of the information contained in the article? (not including Wikipedia or our mirrors, "recursive sourcing" is not allowed)
    • So before voting "keep", perhaps you should see if you can answer any of the above questions first. func(talk) 19:32, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: If more information (most notably, the creator) cannot be found, instead of outright deletion, perhaps summing up the article in a sentence or two and listing it under "Esperanto reforms" in Esperantido could be an acceptable compromise. Almafeta 18:03, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with this last proposition. I discussed with the editor of this article (I don't remember in which language) and it has seemed to me comunleng is known by an only guy and it is not possible to know more about. --Arno Lagrange ✉ 22:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I did that; it's ready to be redirected. (The Esperantido page is a little rough, but it's growing, and help from the esperanto Wikipedia community is being enlisted, so.)
  • Comment. OK, I'm just baffled here. This is like some kind of jury nullification going on. ArnoLagrange has just stated that this comunleng is "known by an only guy", ie: it is an original creation of the Wikipedian who first wrote it, ie: it is original research, and we don't do original research. func(talk) 15:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, unless func's questions of 2 June above can be answered in the article to show verifiability and some kind of importance. I have indeed seen it in lists of conlang names, but I was unaware that it is known by only one person. Google shows no web presence outside Wikipedia. One recent Usenet reference indicates "some use", though based on Arno's post above that writer may have been mistaken. --Cam 16:20, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • I meant to say no web presence outside Wikipedia and various lists of conlangs. -- Cam 16:22, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. As an example of a salvageable conlang article: Ceqli, which survived deletion, is a language with a known author, Web pages with full grammar and vocab, a Yahoo group which has had multiple participants over several years, and a history of discussion about it in the conlang/auxlang mailing lists and newsgroups. -- Cam 16:42, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comunleng&oldid=1137729850"