Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Çavela


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 05:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Çavela

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research. May also fall under WP:MADEUP. Article was originally PROD'ed, but the PROD was removed by an anonymous editor, so here we are at AfD. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - The cited source is a Modern Greek-Dutch dictionary. I haven't tried looking in it, but I'm willing to bet it doesn't back up anything in this article. I'm even skeptical as to the claim that this language is written in the Greek alphabet, since the initial character is part of the normal French extension of the Latin alphabet, and I've never seen a Greek equivalent. No sources, no notability, no history, no contest. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete – Interesting, however unable to find any type of reference, other than Wikipedia. Therefore, original reasearch  and lack of notability.  Sorry. ShoesssS Talk 17:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I assumed the Ç was the Turkish one until I opened the article. If he/she is thinking of trying to get this one off the ground for real, she/he is in for a big disappointment. Not even potential notability here. Peridon (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete Clearly a madeup language. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that it is a made-up language is not a reason to delete it. Esperanto is a made-up language too, after all. However, in this case there is not the slightest proof of notability. Heck, there isn't even any proof that the language exists at all. It's not a matter of the language being made up, whether in school or not, but of a lack of verifiable significance in the form of media coverage, a certain amount of users, etc. To User:Çavela: I like the looks of your language and would certainly encourage you to continue working on it. However, you should understand that Wikipedia is not the right place to showcase your language. It has no chance of survival here. Instead, I'd suggest you make a website for it, or, if you prefer a wiki, to use the Conlang Wiki. Nobody will touch it there. Regards, &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  20:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks interesting, and surely exists to the author, but unfortunately doesn't meet notability req's  Linguist At Large  20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons listed above. And it seems safe to say that the only cited reference, published in 2004, does not contain information on a language invented in 2007-2008. - Aagtbdfoua (talk) 22:41, 12 December 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.