Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enchanta


 * 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 redirect to Encantadia. Consensus that this topic is not notable for its own article. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Enchanta

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. This was a part of a mass AfD in 2009 that concerned a bunch of other fictional languages, and is the only one still not merged and redirected. As such, given the poor sourcing, I think this can also be softly deleted by redirecting to Encantadia. . Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Encantadia. — Emperork (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Take note that this is not a character. Redirect (see my new poll below) to Encantadia, the article cannot stand on its own as two of its sources (Inside Manila and Philippine Headline News) appear to be not reliable sources for fictional stuff like Encantadia. Also having "cite additional sources" tag since November 2016. Judging from the content it should have been tagged with In-universe. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete - Topic lacks real world information needed to meet WP:GNG. TTN (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Constructed languages are a captivating subject. Maybe there are some reliable sources in Spanish or Tagalog? - GizzyCatBella  🍁  09:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know for Spanish, but immediate search for Tagalog sources shows majority of them are fansites or blog sites, failing WP:RS. One more thing, the list of words here is on the verge of becoming a "dictionary-type" list (see WP:DICTIONARY). A glance on its history shows that the list should have been expunged, thanks to, but certain IP users (I suspect it's either the same person or closely-related anonymoymus editors) kept adding that list. With these issues, I'm now leaning to support delete and redirect. Good quality, properly cited paragraphs should be transferred to the relevant section (Encantadia), and delete the whole article plus redirect the link. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, whereas Pirena, Hagorn and the Great Encantadian War are subjects with no notability independent from the series at all, the same cannot be said about the language. If a significant film or TV series makes significant use of a real constructed language, the language in question is notable within the field of constructed languages as well, just like Quenya, Klingon and Dothraki are. Constructed languages rarely attract much media coverage (which, for example, didn't stop Toki Pona from obtaining "good article" status and Kotava from receiving its own language edition), so we can't be too demanding here. That said, SunStar, GMA News and Inside Manila appear to be authorative enough, and for the record, Enchanta is also featured in Stephen D. Rogers' Dictionary of Made-Up Languages. When it comes to notability, that should be enough to keep the article aboard. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  16:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Encantadia: Similar thoughts with the previous AfD. Definitely WP:FANCRUFT. A segment in the target page will suffice. Instead of deleting it, it's best to revdel the revisions done in 2017 (where a slew of vandalism was done) and protect the page indefinitely. ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Luckily, this is not a vote, and fancruft is not a reason for deletion in itself. Well, let me first state that I am not impressed with the quality of the article. Obviously, the word list shouldn't be there at all; Wikipedia is not a dictionary and a short text fragment is more than enough to give an impression of the language. Besides, the text contains fragments that strongly look like original research or even pure guesswork ("The source material of the language appears to have been derived from [...]", "its own script, Enchan, which appears to be based on [...]"). At last, I don't know how elaborate the language is and how much of it has been made known to the public, but the current information is meagre, to say the least. There's not a single word about grammar, for example.
 * The inclusion in a Dictionary is a good sign - or it would be, if the said entry did not look worse than our article, contain no meaningful content, and wouldn't clearly cite Wikedia (!) as a source: . I expected better from Simon and Schuster - the quality of this looks indistinguishable form a self-published work :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  09:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He doesn't mention Wikipedia is a source, he merely mentions it as a site where additional info can be found. That's not the same thing. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  10:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect As this language is not covered in detail in third party sources, which makes it impossible to meet WP:N. I see IJzeren's discovery of the mention in the WP:TERTIARY source and that's not really enough to pass the WP:GNG. Tertiary sources might be able to verify some small amount of information, and provide a precedent for what is considered WP:DUE weight on a subject. If that's the case, there might be a case for drastically cleaning this up and summarizing it for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By "tertiary", you are referring to Rogers? In that case I have to correct you: although the title might suggest that, it's really a secondary source. Apart from that, I wouldn't mind trying to improve this article a bit, but I have very little time at the moment and I am especially not very eager to invest time in something that is going to be deleted anyway. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  23:36, 17 November 2020 (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.