Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esata (2 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 of the debate was delete. No grounds have been provided as why the original VfD, which was as much a referendum on the language as on the article itself, should have been overturned in the first place. Half the cited Google hits (at least) come from Wikipedia or its mirrors. Arguments for notability not made. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Esata
No Vote. Another AfD by popular demand. The first one was 2 years ago, and a reconsideration is deserved in light of the passage of time and the continued interest in the subject. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this was deleted mutiple times, including once by me on the basis of G4. Log. However, I undeleted it thanks to IJ. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Abstain for now. I knów something has happened with the language that might at least contribute to its notability, but I can't remember what! &mdash;IJzeren Jan In mij legge alle fogultjes een ij  19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this was a requested article on the Conlang Portal, it seems rather daft to delete it once it's been created. Bo-Lingua 19:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. Anyone could have put it up there, including an interested editor, e.g., VfD victim's creator. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 19:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That is not the case. It has been there from the very beginning; the initial version of the "things you can do" section was imported wholesale from the German wikipedia (not by me, BTW). But what matters to me is this: I've repeatedly asked people to review that list, and there has been no response to that whatsoever. As a result, Esata has been on that list for quite a while. If the language is indeed non-notable, then it should be all means be deleted, but it's not very elegant towards the person who wrote the article (who, for the record, is not a single-issue wikipedia and doesn't seem to be the author of the language). &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  20:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As non-notable. I'm unable to find any independent coverage of this; Google hits seem to mostly be from forum posts. (Note that "eSATA" is a common term for external SATA, so the number of G hits drops considerably if you exlclude terms like RAID and SATA). OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Not up to WP verifiability standards. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep since Esata relates to many subjects interdisciplinarily, and thus is useful and significant. A redirect link can be included for external SATA at the top of the Esata page.  Please see my comments here. - Doubleg 21:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No case for notability made, reads a little like a vanity promotion. Sdedeo (tips) 22:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Esata conlang" gets 1,680 Google hits. Wiwaxia 08:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Wiwaxia and Boarthur. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  08:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. --Tbonefin 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Crucially this article is unsourced. These short unsourced articles do WP a disservice as a serious encyclopaedia. The author makes no claim for notability or whether it has been adopted. BlueValour 17:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does get a lot of Google hits, but those seem to be primarily lists of conlangs.   The author and/or fans of the language have certainly done a lot of evangelizing to get it on many lists (and the talk page implies they're taking out Google ads as well?) but unless there's a claim of notability on the page or some evidence that other people are discussing (not merely listing) the language, it doesn't merit a page.DenisMoskowitz 17:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable yet. Maybe in a few years if it ever gets a reasonable number of speakers or otherwise becomes noteworthy. We don't want everyone and their dog's constructed language on here, even if they make a big PDF cataloguing all the barks and make it onto a bunch of lists of trivia. --Improv 21:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Relevent Sources
Here are some sources I was able to find referencing Esata, which I'm sure can be used to improve the article - Doubleg 01:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC) The following are sites I found that mention Esata (all of which contain a brief description of Esata): Please add some more if you find any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doubleg (talk • contribs)
 * Langmaker article on Esata on another encyclopedia of sorts. (see Langmaker, a major website in the conlang community)
 * A complete description of this constructed language
 * http://dmoz.org/Science/Social_Sciences/Linguistics/Languages/Constructed/Fictional/
 * http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/5961/lingvoj.HTM
 * http://www.geocities.com/athens/forum/5037/

Question
As a serious question (Esata was my first new article): most of the conlang articles on Wikipedia do not seem to me to fall under the catagory of being notable. Also, the conlang community itself is very small, but as Wikipedia has shown, it is very active (example: see Portal:Constructed languages). Is there something I'm missing? What should be done with the other conlang articles (especially those edited entirely by only 1-2 people)? (E.g. Teonaht, K%C4%93len, Romanova, Da%C3%AFanuvuk%D1%84, Zoinx) Does Esata's creator Pafu get minus points because he hasn't been as active in the conlang community as these other more "notable" folks? Also, would this have happened if I had written a good, full article using a template, etc. to begin with rather than just starting a stub? - Doubleg 02:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've slightly edited the layout of your comments as to keep this discussion from becoming a mess; I hope you don't mind.
 * The number of people who work on an article should not be taken as a measure for the notability of the subject. Although, many people do consider it at least an indication. Look at the edit history of George W. Bush for that! But constructed languages are a subject that many people consider "obscure", so you'll often see only a small number of people working on those articles. I doesn't matter at all whether the creator of the language is a Wikipedia himself! What does matter is that people don't write articles about themselves or their own creations - it is considered bad taste and usually is condemned as vanity. The philosophy: if your language is significant enough, somebody else will write about it.
 * Don't confuse the "conlang community" with those who work on the conlang section in Wikipedia. The former are hundres, maybe thousands of people who meet in several mailing lists, bulletin boards, fora, etc. The latter are just a few active wikipedians who share an interest in the subject (not all of them active conlangers themselves).
 * Sadly, I don't think it would have made much of a difference if your article had been longer. In most cases, AfD discussions about conlangs boil down to the question whether the language is notable/encyclopedic enough for inclusion. They rarely delve into the merits of the article itself. Of course, if it is a decent article that gives at least some indication about the significance of the subject, that will definitely help. &mdash;IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu?  10:44, 15 June 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.